Jacko wrote:
For a typical German autobahn driver a separation of about five feet with a relative speed of, say, 130 kph seems to be quite acceptable..Because cars move essentially in one dimension and follow clearly marked lanes. Anyway I doubt that a relative speed of 130 km/h on the autobahn is either common or acceptable.
For a glider pilot in a thermal or ridge soaring, or a mountain pilot, about half a wingspan is comfortable.Why is it that glider pilots wear parachutes? Why did the glider community develop FLARM?
For formation flying, wings may overlap.In which case the formation flight was pre-planned, the pilots have training for it and the only task of one of the pilots is keeping station with the other.
I don’t see how you can even begin to compare any of these situations with an aircraft enroute flying through a traffic circuit at circuit altitude.
Meanwhile in professional flying……. http://www.avherald.com/h?article=49d41628
172driver wrote:
Meanwhile in professional flying…
As I wrote early in this thread: Everybody can make a mistake. They realised they were lined-up with something else but the runway and went around before hitting something or flying into the path of other aircraft. This visual approach from the east into Nizza is really beautiful to fly and has a lot of distractions and then there is low-level haze from the sea (the airport is surrounded by water from three sides) and they were flying against the setting sun. But again, a mistake of some sort. They were not deliberately flying low over the town because everybody knows that this is really expensive…
Steve, it is not for me to judge what is or is not acceptable, but you asked our opinion, and mine is that there are often two sides to this kind of aerial encounter. However hard it seems, I would try to see it from the point of view of the other pilot who, technically, may have had the right of way.
It seems that the other pilot was perfectly entitled (but arguably unwise) to fly at 501 ft agl along the river next to a private airfield. He may have seen you downwind and watched you on base leg. He may not have expected you to swing quite so wide outside the track shown on the DFS visual approach chart for EDLH. He might not have expected you to cross his path, or the river, let alone the canal.
Or he may have been blissfully unaware, perhaps rolling a joint, or whatever microlight and glider pilots do when they’re fed up with gawping out of the window and wishing they had a proper cockpit like ours with TV screens and talking gizmos with flashing LEDs. We’ll probably never know, not least because you decided it would be helpful to swear at him for not using a radio which he was not obliged to carry.
If he had used his radio, you might or might not have seen him a bit sooner. If so, you would have turned onto your final approach a bit sooner to avoid him in accordance with the rules of the air (SERA 3210(c)(2)) rather than crossing his path. You were still more than a mile and a half from the runway, so you could hardly claim to be “in the final stages of an approach to land” (SERA 3210(c)(4)).
Anyway, he probably saw you in plenty of time, you saw him in sufficient time, you avoided each other in Class G airspace in which neither of you was required to carry transponder or radio – albeit not altogether in accordance with the Common Rules of the Air. What’s not to like?
Jacko wrote:
the other pilot who, technically, may have had the right of way
I don’t think you can argue that by any stretch. As I have pointed out further up, the relevant SERA rule having been breached here isn’t about the general collision avoidance rules in 3210 (aircraft coming from the right, overtaking etc.) which you cited, but rather this:
SERA.3225 Operation on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome
An aircraft operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:
(a) observe other aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding collision;
(b) conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;
…
Flying across the final approach if you’re not landing at an airfield can not be regarded as “conform with the pattern”, and neither is it “avoid the pattern”. It’s a plain and simple breach of the rules and of good airmanship.
But the horrid glider pilot didn’t fly across the published final approach path. Steve’s path overshot the actual runway axis. I’m not throwing stones, we’ve all done that, just saying what we see on the GPS trace.
It’s also a matter of opinion as to whether the “vicinity” of a private aerodrome extends nearly two miles from the ARP for the purposes of SERA.3225.
Certainly, that rule is widely ignored in (dis)respect of small airfields. Glenswinton has been on the NATS charts for about five years, yet we often have fast jets, Hercules, light aeroplanes and helicopters blundering overhead at or above 200 agl. Maybe we should also put our rifle range on the charts, that might do the trick…
It could also be argued that the river and canal form an essential corridor for en route microlights and similar aerial trash wishing to avoid overflying the city of Hamm. In which case a thoughtful airman landing on Runway 06 might offset his final turn a few hundred feet to the north, rather than swinging south of the river.
I’m not criticising Steve, just saying that it might be worth trying to learn from the encounter and fly a tighter circuit in future, rather than swearing at the (allegedly) dozy TMG jockey.
if you’re going to quote SERA in defence of the other guy, please tell me how he was conforming to SERA 5005:
(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:
(1) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle
within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;
Looking at the above, how can you ‘perceive’ that he was legal to fly through the middle of a built up area at that height – or doesn’t a river flowing through a city count as a built up area? If that’s the case, at what point does a brook, a stream, a pond or a lake suddenly become ‘not part of a built up area’?
Additionally, as you’ve been studying the circuit, perhaps you should study the AIP more closely and you will see it clearly says ‘the town of Hamm shall not be overflown below 2000 feet MSL’. Two statements which clearly ban low flying aircraft yet you would have me believe he was legal to fly in that manner?
Finally, the manner in which we (by this I mean all local pilots) fly the circuit is in this manner because it keeps us over the industrial area and away from residential areas to the west of Hamm on base; it reduces noise pollution for residents but is approximately 0,1NM wider than published. For info, we have actually requested having the official AIP changed to ensure all pilots follow it but the DFS doesn’t want it changed. Nevertheless if you believe I am at fault because I turn 0,1NM wider out onto final, then fair enough……
Jacko wrote:
But the horrid glider pilot didn’t fly across the published final approach path. Steve’s path overshot the actual runway axis. I’m not throwing stones, we’ve all done that, just saying what we see on the GPS trace.
Sorry, you’re missing the fact that the circuit I flew is what ALL local pilots follow for noise abatement – if any come to Hamm, I always brief them on this. The Motor Glider Pilot is local and knows this….. Please don’t try to put the blame on me for following our internally agreed circuit – which we are trying to have the DFS accept and publish; However, more importantly, the point at which the collision could have occurred was directly in the published circuit, on final so please retract that statement that the glider did not fly across the published final approach path because he DID.
But the horrid glider pilot didn’t fly across the published final approach path.
Has the published circuit pattern been posted here? I certainly understand the yellow line drawn in post #1 to be crossing the final approach to runway 06 at Hamm. I don’t even get how you could seriously argue that flying that track at 500 AGL would NOT put you in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
I wouldn’t argue in this case with the overflying height of built-up areas, because that rule wasn’t written to prevent collisions.
SERA 3025 on the contrary clearly was written to prevent situations exactly like the one we’re talking about here.
Edit: here is the approach plate:
Steve,
Yes, looking at Google Earth I would say that the green corridor north of the river and canal are definitely not a “congested area” of the city of Hamm. In that strip of land I can see a lake, a park, some fields, a sewage treatment farm, the airfield, and the King’s Bootshaus hotel, but that’s about all. But this GE image may be out of date and it may all be houses now. Have a look and see what you think:
It seems from your GPS trace in post #01 that you did fly south of the river “over the town of Hamm” by a hundred metres or so, well outside the published path but no, I can’t say you’re “at fault”. However, in the light of your unfortunate experience, I’d be inclined to turn final soon after crossing Nordenstiftsweg. I think that would be a more positive reaction than shaking a stick at the other guy, but hey, it’s up to you.
