Rallied!

[Alan Kilbride]

I too had an excellent rally. Having heard several remarks as to the airmanship of some, I do think the greater majority were well disciplined.

No excuse for the idiots though. Lots of info online and loads of advice available on various forums.


Far too much beer though.

[Charles E Taylor]

It has been busier at Cranfield in the 'old days'!

If anyone has any positive suggestions how things can be improved in the circuit please post!

Make the Hard Circuit RH and the Grass LH.

This will stop aircraft that are cutting in crossing on Final.




Charlie

[Jonathan Holland]

Make the Hard Circuit RH and the Grass LH.

This will stop aircraft that are cutting in crossing on Final.

.....and will also have aircraft flying head-on at each other on Base leg!!!

[tnowak]

I did wonder if some of the issues experienced were due to the close proximity of hard and grass and the circuit direction being the same for both. If circuit directions were opposite then at least one would (or should) have an idea of the intentions of the "other aircraft" flying close by. Also perhaps a suggested or designated aiming point for turning onto final?
My own experience was that the "flow" from downwind, to base leg to final worked well (okay, one had to find the end of the line to "join"). It was at the very last stages that problems occured with being cut up or, perhaps, aircraft drifting from a hard to grass or vice versa approach.

How does Oshkosh handle the situation? Could their rules/guidelines be used over here?
Tony N

[Bill McCarthy]

I think the "problem" is more to do with the wide ranging airspeeds on final. Many will be reluctant to overshoot slower traffic ahead from low level and a climb/slot into busy circuit traffic again, whilst trying to maintain a good lookout. A solution could be to allocate arrival slots related to those differing airspeeds. There is no easy fix.

[Nick Allen]

The Rallies at Kemble used to have "counter-rotating circuits", did they not? There were patterns set up north and south of the field for the respective runways. Seemed to work well (but didn't stop that b****y Sky Arrow cutting right in front of me as he joined for the northern runway, but elected to land on the southern).

Edited to add: and remember that the Kemble Rallies didn't have slots. I wonder if having slots, and people thus worrying about timing, is also affecting decision-making. (Yes, I know the organisers are clear that slots are flexible, but perhaps this hasn't filtered through to everyone). Having two clearly separated circuits obviously means that each has less traffic in it.

[Rob Swain]

Make the Hard Circuit RH and the Grass LH.

This will stop aircraft that are cutting in crossing on Final.

.....and will also have aircraft flying head-on at each other on Base leg!!!

I'm assuming that you're assuming use of 21.
If using 03 the suggestion is even more scary!

On a slightly more serious note the comments about people changing runway whilst on final are already addressed in the published procedure. Quite simply, you are not allowed to!

As regards varying speeds of the traffic and catching up the aircraft in front this is largely bad airmanship and a lack of planning. I fly an RV-6. It will fly slowly, if one can pull back the testosterone and the throttle sufficiently. Most fast types will fly slowly, although I will admit that some don't do it very gracefully (Rutan canards, for example).

It might be sensible for those with faster approach speeds to keep to the hard, and the more leisurely ones to the grass, but that suggestion probably has issues of its own.

[pbflyer]

All in all I thought it was a brilliant rally. It was my 16th rally but my first arrival by air. What a great feeling. How many of you remember your first rally arrival? As to airmanship. I think we all saw some shocking stuff over the weekend. I feel it necessary to mention the d******d who took off first thing sunday morning with a 200 foot cloudbase and pulled a low level turn over the tower, restaurant and hangar one. Does he understand what would happen if he had an engine failure at that height. If people are stupid enough to risk their own lives, so be it, but, please do not risk taking other innocent victims with you. You know who you are.

[steveneale]

Does he understand what would happen if he had an engine failure at that height.

Land on the airfield directly underneath him perhaps?

[mikehallam]

Or perhaps the parked a/c and/or campers ?

[Nigel Hitchman]

Rob has got it right, people flying faster aeroplanes need to fly slower and plan better. sometimes it wont work, then an early go around is a good idea. I too fly an RV6 and can happily fly at 70mph, although not a lot slower, but I can still manage to stay behind most other aircraft, and even fit in with the flexwings at Popham and Spamfield most of the time.
Slower aircraft should also try to fly faster until they really need to slow down on final. Dont do your usual circuit at 50mph, when you could fly downwind at 80 and then slow to 50 on final.
Having both approaches from the same side shouldnt cause problems as aircraft should be in one line on the downwind so when splitting for the two parrallel runways should have the same or more spacing, the problem comes from people catching each other up.
I think having opposite direction circuits at sywell would be difficult due to the built up area on the other side of the airfield and finding a suitable assembly point. It would also make everything much more complicated for the arrival routes to the assembly areas.
Oshkosh doesnt do much better, they have 3 runways to use which helps and a week to get all the traffic in, but you still see lots of go arounds, a few groundloops etc. One advantage they have is that you can go off the runways onto the grass at all points, this would really help on the hard at Sywell if landing aircraft could exit onto the grass as soon as under control.
At Oshkosh they also have the advantage of allowing multiple landings at the same time on the same runway, ie one lands short and one lands long. Unfortuantely the CAA wont allow Sywell to do this, back at Kemble/Cranfield we were allowed to land with aircraft still on the runway further ahead taxiing towards the turnoff, this made it a lot safer and less unecessary go arounds. The CAA say this is only allowed with full Air Traffic control, however, we had very modified full ATC, and in later years it was actually operated as a FISO service, the same as Sywell!! But the controllers had many years of experience. Perhaps the CAA will give in and allow this at Sywell now Jeff and team have more experience of the Rally situation (Im sure they could have handled it straight away!) The other advantage at previous Rallys was the control caravan which was moved near to the approach end, allowing controllers a better view of when they needed to tell aircraft to go around. That was very expensive though, to equip and for the yearly CAA approvals/controller checkouts.

[Bill McCarthy]

Until I acquire a faster craft I shall stay away and continue to arrive by road - I fly at 45kts with my VNE at 72 !

[Steve Brown]

Rob!! - graceless Rutan canards - how very could you!

[Kevin Dilks]

One indecent I did manage to see that really annoyed me was the Groppo trail being taxied in past the marquee on the Thursday with people walking about setting up there stands, all other planes on display shut down and were pushed to there relevant spots..................

Enough said I think?

[Simon Ring]

This is the first oportunity I have had to post since the weekend. This year we camped and apart from having to move pitch in the middle of the night due to wasps....a full and fun filled weekend was had. Splendid service all round and the beer festival was right up my other street alongside aircraft. The two combined made for a a weekend not to be forgotten in a long time....well until next year perhaps.

Well done to all in the LAA and associated with it....you all gave me and my lad a weekend in heaven.