Thanks for posting this. I have flown from Popham for years and have owned a variety of typically faster/visibility restricted aircraft from there. It’s a great place with a nice atmosphere but it’s relatively “different” to get in and out of for a host of reasons. My personal record is 7 go arounds before finally landing for various reasons but mostly runway occupied/folk stopping on the runway/circuit spacing. This is often caused by the wide range of types including gyros (which have unusual circuit characteristics) there. However, my observations are that: 1. Many don’t understand that an overhead join is “…required unless precluded by the cloudbase…” 2. Poor use of radio to build personal situational awareness, hampered by… 3. Overly wordy or incorrect circuit calls 4. Poor positioning on the ground preventing visual acquisition of other traffic 5. Fretting about noise areas on SkyDemon but not giving enough attention to spacing from other aircraft 6. Only having a “fly the circuit and land” plan I believe what the event shows is a pilot trying to squeeze out of a gap in a rush (power application in the turn suggests this) Another pilot being rather aggrieved at being made to go around No good plan to cross to the dead side in the go around from the Pup pilot Potentially wanting to ‘make a point’ to the Cessna pilot. It’s rather a shame that the hazard was increased so significantly by the series of choices. I’m sure that neither pilot set out in the morning with a plan to be in this position. There’s a bit of chat in the comments about non-UK (FAA) circuit joining rules which I think sows confusion in the UK more generally. We might be slightly weird (non-ICAO) but it’s all published and we ought to up our game as a community
Pup driver probably forgot that in the case of go around you move off the runway, to the deadside. If you don't do them very often you forget, or perhaps didn't learn, or remember learning, that rule
I must say, I've "forgotten" in so much that I am based at a left hand circuit airfield so just always felt a go-around deviates to the right of the runway. not even thought about whether it was dead side or not. Good point.
Really? Always seemed to be the very worst kind of English airfield. Stupid layout, rammed full of snobby brits who think the best place to fly is in the rather miserable little caff. GA in the UK really does suck.
The best way to avoid a catastrophic incident is to recommend going into Settings and turning off collision. Also if you turn down the occlusion your respawn with occur faster.
One of those things where listening out on the radio and absolutely clear with your intentions on the radio whilst keeping you eyes wide open is so vital. Thankfully catastrophe was avoided but this could've been so much worse. Thank you so much for sharing! Valuable insight and lessons learned all round.
Come to Headcorn, all the usual GA traffic, Helicopters, Spitfires, Hurricanes, parachutists, sky divers, wing walking, aerobatics in the overhead, model aircraft, keep your eyes open. !!
PPL ARG pilot here (250+ Hs., but not flying for 25 years), now training for a ULM license in Spain. My take: In controlled airports, you see many a TO with ACFT in final, so this is not uncommon. However, it seems to me that the Pup was: 1. Too high / too fast for landing, although it seemed possible 2. Did not execute a GoAround, but a flyby 3. Failed to keep the Cessna in sight while climbing 4. Did not offset to the left / "deadside" (new concept I just learned from the comments! Thanks!) Cessna perspective / options for safer TO: 1. Maybe a bit impatient in waiting for a bigger gap? 2. Runway is +900m long (more than enough for Cessna), so TO at the TH with no visibility of oncoming traffic seems dangerous. Could you TO further ahead where you can see and others see you? 3. Could have waited at the TH before TO and used radio help from other pilots / ground and/or to wait for the Pup to land before starting TO roll... Fell free to comment, so I can learn from more experienced pilots here
Great video TK, which I really hope will jolt a lot of folk. 30+ years pro as a training skipper, still fly multiple GA and ex-instructor and saddened at the level of misunderstanding and airmanship I often witness. If things don’t sharpen up, the bad statics will only increase. Not going to go into the blame game on this event, just observations and highlight the basics we should all be adhering to. Always be prepared to go-around, even when you touch down. A go-around is a normal manoeuvre. In the pro world, we never think ‘Landing,’ we think ‘continue!’ Clearly no info on comms, although let’s call it disheartened over the calls for almost instant comms at such a critical moment in this and many other incidents. (A-N-C!)…AVIATE, NAVIGATE, and only when safe to do so…COMMUNICATE. Communication is key yes, albeit succinct and at the appropriate moment. Why communicate when you could be ‘navigating’ towards another aircraft/obstacle, or I-LOC due to lack of your primary task - to safely aviate your aircraft. These are the basics which should be engrained and enacted by us all! Summary - Plan (and not just one plan!), prepare and brief…for the entirety of your flight. Threat and Error Management, Distraction, Situational Awareness (transmit timely radio calls), Decision Making and the real basics of A-N-C. These are all mitigating elements used professionals utilise, day in day out. Lastly, you are PIC of your aircraft. Therefore, you have total responsibility for said aircraft, any passengers you carry, and your duty is to operate your aircraft safety around other aircraft, obstacles and persons, whether you are moving or stationary. Please fly safe all 🙏🏼
A very interesting scenario, Terry. I have sympathy for the Cessna pilot as it appears the only way he was going to get out was in judging a wide enough gap in the inbound traffic. He looks to have made an immediate take off and there appears time enough for the Pup pilot to land… unless I’m missing something. I’ve often flown a final watching another aircraft taking off in front of me and leaving my go-around decision until the last few seconds. If the landing approach is correctly set up then a late decision to land or go around shouldn’t be a problem. Great vid 👍👏👏
The Pup had plenty of separation to land, but on the threshold chose to stay way too high because of the Cessna in his clear view, but in actuality, it should have triggered him to simply close the throttle and reduce speed immediately since he is already flaps down and just glide in as the Cessna is taking off, no chance of either of them contacting one another. The Ole saying is "Your chances of survival are twice as good with a ground-footing and thrice as bad aloft"
@@dabneyoffermein595 The problem with committing to land while there is another plane taking off, while it looks like there is plenty of separation, is what happens if the plane on the ground aborts the take off? If that happens at just the wrong time the landing plane may not be able to avoid a collision. I suppose a runway collision is better than a mid-air though.
@@brandyballoon That is exactly why you do not commit to land. I've followed ac down Final who call Touch n Go fully anticipating I may have to Go Around until I see them wheels up. If they are still on the runway I power up, move to the deadside, re-configure and then communicate. Lucky to have trained at a busy AG airfield so decision-making was built in to every lesson by necessity!
@@ajs1691 Exactly that... configure for landing but don't commit until it's clear to do so. There's nothing wrong with flying down to a few feet above the first part of a runway and then making the decision to go around, as long as the runway has sufficient length for the landing if you decide and it's in your plan to do either and not a last minute decision.
speaking as a student pilot (33hrs at time of writing) and an air ground operator, i see this from both sides. now as TK rightly said, we as air ground ops CANNOT issue instructions to pilots, however, with the EXCEPTION of life or death situations (aka common sense prevails) I believe we can. what we are allowed to do is pass traffic information, suggestions and advice to the pilots to aid in their decision making. We tend to see the bigger picture of the circuit and who's in it and who's waiting. if i was placing myself in this scenario (and im saying this using my own experience of A/G ops) i would have *suggested* to the cessna to hold short as there was traffic on a short final. the pilot of the cessna would still be perfectly within their right to ignore me and take off. now as a student pilot, the way i was taught was - In a go around, move to the deadside and rejoin the circuit when appropiate - now looking at pophams chart, i can see why the beagle pup may have elected not to move to the deadside. the A303, in the event of a low altitude engine failure, would the pup have been able to clear the road safely with enough time to make a decision? i'm guessing that they may have waited for sufficient altitude to cross to the deadside in that specific circumstance. do we know this for certain, no. I am not saying that anyone is at fault here, i'm just participating in this general discussion these are my own personal views and in no way represent the airfield i work for, or the flying school i'm currently taught at.
Pity there were no radio calls context to the clip but as you say, if I were the pilot of the Pup initiating a go around, the correct and only safe way to do this would have been to move to the dead side, assuming of course that the Pup pilot had briefed the approach beforehand and would have expected the right off-set turn out of the departing Cessna. As for the Cessna it was fait accompli for the Pup whether or not he had the right of way but certainly seemed to exhibit poor airmanship in compromising the approach. I wonder if it was later reported as a near miss.
I wasn't too sure Graham, I mean we can all see the Pup could have landed and how much space do you give to landing aircraft 1mile, 2 miles, more? I suppose the old adage that the landing isn't complete until you taxi off the runway and that the take off is not complete until you've cleaned up the airframe once airborne. I would say this was probably 50/50 and all down to airmanship, the Cessna maybe should have waited and the Pup should have moved to the left on the go-around.
@@ShortField will be interesting if either pilot watches your vid and comments Terry. I'm sure the UK Airprox Board would have a view given their safety brief. I'm sure there would be some valuable lessons to be drawn.
I've seen others talk about this. All of tge pilots were talking on the radio, but it sounds like they were not listening. Situation awareness and talking to the other pilots on the radio is important.
For a go-around why was the Pup pilot holding altitude down the runway ??? Almost seemed like an unplanned fly by. Go arounds in my C152 are not flat like that.
Maybe a reminder to take from our airline friends that really every approach should be flown as if the GA is mandatory, until it becomes clear that it’s definitely safe to commit to a landing. In this case perhaps the landing pilot wasn’t expecting to have to fly a GA and hadn’t mentally prepared for the best way to accomplish that. I agree with you that immediately moving to the deadside would have been preferable.
I had to read that serval times to work out that you meant go around (GA) and not general aviation, which is what I normally see GA being used to refer to.
Good vid👍 It has to be assumed by the Pup it was not seen by the Cessna even though the Pup. I would say that since the Pup established a go around due to seeing the Cessna taking off, the onus was again on the Pup to steer clear. Seeing as take offs can be unpredicable for multiple reasons, despite both knowing the NoFly area, I would say the Pup, made a quick check of the right shoulder, than made an emmidiate a harder right, being a right hand circuit, exiting circuit to the right and doing a go around. Cheers
Cheers Patrick, that was an option I didn't consider, an immediate right turn by the Pup would have taken back to downwind however it's a very noise sensitive area and not a manoeuvre that would have been appreciated. Thanks so much sir.
@@ShortField Yes, but safety supercedes noise abatement protocals. I dont think you should get any complaints for a one off, and it will be easily expained should there be some. Cheers
Terry. The Pup did not do a go around, he did a fast pass. A go-around includes a climb, immediately after the radio call that should have announced it. Likewise the Cessna should have communicated his take off. A total non-event turned into something by dubious airmanship. Lessons learned.
When I was a young man landing on RWY25 now 26 we had to fly through a gap between a line of protected trees banking and flaring at the same time, happy days. oh and sometimes we had to low fly along the runway to scare the sheep into a corner Lolz!
Here in the US, Federal Air Regulations make no rules, other than see and avoid other aircraft, about uncontrolled airfields because to do so would be deceiving. Electronics have made some of our pilots think they are in a pilot controlled situation. This is not the situation, as we observe too often.
We have the same Jimmy but we do have some basic guidelines/rules although everything is subjective and it's no good being 'DEAD' right so best just fly defensively and assume every other pilot is trying to kill you :-)
Great video Terry. Thanks! I guess the Cessna Pilot should have given way to the landing aircraft. But that assumes the landing pilot made the correct Base and Final to Land Calls.
Lack of radio recordings is unfortunate. If both pilots talked on radio as they should have, then cessna would know that beagle was on short final and beagle, most importantly, would know that there is traffic rolling. Then when beagle decided to go around, he would expect the conflict and sidestep. However, when you are on short final, especially into a short soft field, you really don't want extra distractions( these landins are extra challenging). I think the cessna was in the wrong (assuming beagle was announcing his position and intentions). My lesson here: don't take the runway with traffic on short final even if it looks like you can sneak out in time
From the time delay between the cessna starting its take off roll and the pup flying over the approach end i would expect the distance to be about 500 meters and if the pup would have continued its approach and slowed down rather than go around the distance likely would have been enough for the cessna to be airborne prior to the pup touching down. This doesn’t strike me as particularly close. It is not any closer than I have experienced on some approaches at my airport which is controlled (canada). An aircraft cleared for departure that gets on its way a little slow, and you are either sent going around or you have to fly along at a few feet high until the other aircraft has lifted off and you get clearance to touch down. If you are sent to go around you just offset to the right so you can easily see the other aircraft and then match their speed. European circuits being so intricately laid out should be particularly easy as every turn is specified on the vac (at least in switzerland). Also, as a glider pilot I guess I am a little more comfortable with flying very close to other aircraft particularly when they are going the same way.
Love your videos. They help me think about what I might do in a situation, in advance of perhaps one day encountering it after getting my PPL. I believe the kind of thought you promote with your videos is healthy, and helps prepare pilots and wanna-be pilots because you help viewers to think about what the safeest and best actions might be in various scenarios. This thinking in advance IS learning and you may have saved a few lives already, simply by creating the many videos you have already created, and helping so many people develop. Bravo, and thank you! Love your content!
Great video! as always thought provoking. Apart from thinking that you plan your day so you don’t have that need to get out quick, not much else to add. Loved seeing Popham again. Have a lot of very fond memories. Dick (I think that was his nsme) had the aeroplane climbing frame put in as a result of our kids! Dad’s ashes were spread there too. Never did any flying there myself (didn’t get into it until moving to nz), but always visit when I’m home.
Wow that was close😮😮😮. Aeronautical decision making is a skill. Both a landing or go around would have been possibilities here. The safest one is a go around however just in case the cessna rejects. Very interesting incident.
I don’t like to speculate but to me it’s clear that the Cessna was trying to take off quickly, knowing the Pup was coming. You can see his wings bumping up and down aggressively as he taxis quickly towards the threshold and his line up turn is also fast, with an immediate take off. Impatience and ego kill people in aviation. When are we going to learn?
It's never a bad decision to go around if that's what you have to do. The Cessna should never have taken off because of this possibility of a go around
I’m not a pilot or an Air Traffic, but I am an ex techy, I have taught EASA safety to ATSEP staff and can’t fathom here why would pilots not talk to the ATC? Let alone not even use their radios? This seems like make it up as you go along… where is all the flight safety, training and procedure? Is this just a bunch of civvie slacker amateurs waiting for an early grave?
Cessna should have waited with an aircraft on final. But it also looks like the Beagle was planning a flyby instead of an actual landing and was way too cavalier about getting close to the departing aircraft. Poor decision making from both.
My first visit to Popham as a relatively low hours taildragger pilot, flying at SF25C with 15m wings this Saturday. Was glad to see it was unusually quiet. With the amount of noise abatement areas it was high on my "what if's" list on needing to abandon a circuit at any point. We had a departing aircraft when descending deadside, and it took a little bit of thinking as to where to overfly to avoid both them and noise sensitive areas. In this case, once the Pup pilot had decided to go around (and nobody can ever be bashed for going around if it doesn't feel right), holding the offset approach heading or even going for the extended centreline of 03/21 would've worked a lot better. Turning inside the Cessna wasn't bright, if the local procedures had been read and understood then the Pup should've known they were about to make a right turn for noise abatement. put themselves in a very risky place. The Cessna was hustling as best they could, that taxi up the hill was not short of speed! Great analysis Terry all the same, its videos like these that get us thinking for when it might happen to us.
You see all the time where people create dangerous/difficult situations in the name of making the safe decision, where actually it wasn't necessary at all, simply a *little extra intestinal fortitude was required. I think that's what really happened here. Although it's also true that the Cessna pilot could have been more careful.
If aircraft on the runway cannot be seen by approaching traffic surely the only safe options are a) it becomes a controlled airfield, or b) the runway is shortened so aircraft can be seen (or c), don't put the runway in that spot to begin with)
Nonsense. For such and many many other reasons there are established radio communication protocols in uncontrolled fields. If both pilots followed them, there would be no problems
I learnt at White Waltham and go arounds on busy days are as common as landings, but if you're not familiar or have not practised one for a while it can be confusing, which is what I imagine happened here. Startle factor as the pup pilot sees the Cessna, pause to deicde if they can land safely, abort decision and then forgotten deadside go around. I hope it's not a White Waltham Pup! Easy mistake to make, everyone walked / flew away and the lessons we learn from are always the hardest. I had a close call with a PC12 at Popham that decended straight into the downwind as we were departing downwind, as per procedure. Again we survived but I may have had a chat on the radio with the pilot of the PC12!
A radio call on final by the Pup and a rolling radio call by the 172 should have alerted both as to what the situation was. Great video Terry and an excellent learning opportunity for all. Thanks for posting.
With power pilots there's too much emphasis on go rounds IMO. Did the Cessna call "rolling or "departing" on the radio? There was plenty of time IMO for Pup to land in that instance. Glider pilots get very proficient at landing 1st time every time. If power pilots had the same mind set, maybe there would be less unnecessary go rounds?! (I fly gliders and power)
Witnessing the comments/views over such things as, ‘takeoff is optional, landing is mandatory’ (a landing is never mandatory!), and both aircraft operators should have ‘stamped’ on the radio whilst performing, let’s call it a missed approach/low approach, is fundamentally incorrect. What is mandatory is Air Law dictated by the ANO, which you should all be well versed. Communicate yes, albeit at the appropriate moment. Again…Aviate, Navigate and when appropriate…Communicate.
Not enough information unfortunately. Cessna pilot might not have seen the Beagle. Did the beagle made the call and when ? Any reason not to use the 21 rwy for arrivals ? That grass and leaves not moving and flags look limp. In dangerous situations, we are allowed to brake any rule if needed to assure safety of flight. So when juggling lives at risk vs someones noise annoyance, it is quite obvious. Also the fact that we are supposed to always turn right to avoid collision might have played a role in his initial indecision. In the end Beagle might have had right of way, but was in higher energy state, thus only one to solve the situation.
Just stumbled upon this SERA.3210 Right-of-way : "an aircraft that is aware that the manoeuvrability of another aircraft is impaired shall give way to that aircraft." obviously its not intended to be abused nor as a means to solve after disputes. But given the situation as a correct response.
Not sure i get the go around. To be honest, if the Pup was almost down and did see the Cessna, surely he could tell it was well into its departure! But his go around wasn't great eaither. Being the lower aircraft and starting to climb out he would loose visual on the Cessna. So why didn't he start a turn into the circuit and join midway down wind? Am sure a lot of local pilots can put me right on this field. Personally, I would have just continued the landing.
I would have gone around assuming there was no radio communication that is. I would however have moved to the left of the centre line, firstly to keep him in sight for as long as possible and secondly because I would have guessed he would be turning right on climb out.
it's hard to form an opinion, because I don't see the situation from my "normal" angle 😅 anyway, I would have either landed (if in full landing config already), or I would have climbed rather steep (at Vx), because of the flying obstacle ahead of me! 😂 definitely keeping a lookout on the Cessna, as well as the surrounding airspace, because when there is one conflicting traffic, there can be another one, too
YIKES! I PREFER: get lateral for visibility, on the outside of expected pattern, with plenty of room, & communicate that aircraft taking off is "lead" ..I will yield .. Why? I am OVERTAKING with higher energy, turning off gives proximity space..space increases visibility..shallow bank early to vector away vs losing visibility rolling away closer.. @ This site, with unique fknal approach, I wouldn't take runway if ANYONE had declared final or BASE for that matter..I'd wait till they had cleared. Formation flying instruction can really come in handy to have better confidence, knowledge & experience to deal with close proximity maneuvering..maintaining visibility is KEY
great video! quick question for you, how do you generate your animations ? I see you use Google Earth for the mapping but your annimations on top of it are really good for explaining things. Anyway very informative - thank you for your work
As others have said, better radio announcements by both pilots and the Pup moving to the left off the runway line when he saw the Cessna would have contributed to a less ‘exciting’ near miss. I call it a near miss because just a bit more speed from the Pup or a faster climb from the Cessna could have resulted in a collision. It could of course be that the low wing of the Pup meant he didn’t see the Cessna until it was right underneath him, but again clear radio calls should have prevented the situation. Do wonder why Popham have let all those bushes grow up on the side of the runway, cutting them back to allow landing aircraft a better view of the runway hold point would seem sensible? I’ve been startled at Popham before now, crossing from deadside to join the 21 circuit, with a departing aircraft off 26 climbing right underneath me. It can get busy on fly-in’s and you’ve got to keep an excellent lookout.
Dan Gryders on the money...people need to talk more. Anyway, 182 should have faced finals thru screen, but agree on deadside.. looks like Pup hadn't read the Popham spiel.
It is hard to make a judgement without access to the radio calls. Did the Cessna call "lining up for immediate departure"? Did the Pup call "short final to land"? When the Pup elected to go around, did he call "going around"? Did the Cessna respond with "We will be turning right"? I believe go-arounds should be conducted to the R of the runway, that is certainly true in FAA-land: "Maneuver the aircraft to the right side of the runway to avoid conflicting traffic. This is especially important if the go-around was caused by someone taking off in front of you." If so, that should have alerted the Cessna pilot to a risk of collision. This incident appears to be caused by poor airmanship by one or the other or both.
As shown, the pup seems to be in the wrong, could have landed with no issues. I think his reaction was to move to the right out of habit but it should be to the dead side, easy to mess that up. Once he's behind the departing Cessna common sense dictates only he can provide separation. I'm always hesitant to make any comment because such things are common. If the Cessna had taken off 20 seconds later everything would be much tighter.
How could the Pup be wrong if he is having to react to a dangerous situation that could have been entirely prevented if the departing Cessna had given way to landing traffic as the rules state??
Its crazy how many planes fly over my house with no adsb and possibly nordo. Its legal yes but so what. Like that float plane accident in florida. I hear that guy was all about no radios and adsb which lead to the midair.
I can guarantee you there was no radio conversation. Non-towered airports don’t require pilots to make position reports so things like this happen more often than you think. I’ve had people cut me off in a traffic pattern, almost land on top of me while I was taking the runway in the US. And every time, their excuse was “I don’t have to make radio calls at a non-towered airport.” When I worked in the Bahamas flying a 1900, a guy in a Cessna 402 almost hit us while we were setting up for final coming into North Eluthra because and I quote, “It’s not towered. I don’t need to talk on the radio.”
I face the same "luddite response" at my busy uncontrolled airfield. It's selfish and arrogant response uttered by old fools in old planes who know everything and are happy to prove it. 😒
I'm sorry, but your comment is incorrect. I am based at Popham. There would have been radio calls...and those radio calls, had they been included, could paint a very different picture.
@@microlightkeith7395 might be a difference in requirements between FAA and EASA. FAA and CAA-B don’t require position reports at non-towered airports.
@@peterthoshinsky6468 it seems like it’s worse when dealing with Light Sport guys. We have an idiot at the airport I fly out of who has an ultralight (the one that’s a hang glider with that tricycle and the huge fan on the back). He’s notorious for just doing whatever the hell he wants and has nearly caused several accident.
Hard to say without radio calls. BUT imho, the C172 should have waited at the hold (gethomeitus?) longer as the BP had the right of way 'finals to land'. The BP, although wishing to avoid an incident and building a margin for error, did the right thing by going around (no point in being in the right but dead!). However the BP should have used (been aware of) the dead-side to go around procedure - thus separation/time to assess, plus better visibility of the C172. To my mind that's what a dead-side go around is all about (sometimes hard with multiple runways, Eg grass and hard, as at Kemble). But a case of - a perfect storm - there by the grace of God, go I? 💜💜✌️✌️😊😊
Why not to depart from the intersection just in front of the C172? I think it would have had 700 mts at least... Not to operate that way on every departure but given the circumstances... Regarding the landing aircraft.. I would have landed.. BUT if not.. your recommended option would have been also my course of action. Thank you for sharing.
Think you missed the point of the video, VFR stands for Visual Flight Rules there are still flight RULES the main one being see and avoid, however the discussion here is how they got so close and what what you do to not put yourself in this situation? Thanks for the comment.
@@ShortField As there is no specified minimum distance between planes during VFR, I would assume, the pilot of second aircraft is sane and keeps it safe. That was my point.
Somebody commented on here that performing a go-around was a poor decision. Wrong. It was the correct decision, although not positioned correctly. Any aircraft that is on or just left the runway is not a clean runway; therefore, remove yourself from the hazard by carrying out a go-around. Go-around is easy and fun (in my opinion) and you don't loose any face, in fact you can pat yourself on the back or get a positive comment from the tower (I've had that radioed to me). The problem Cessna should have waited and I have learnt a lot from not being hasty at the hold. Remember, takeoff is optional, landing is mandatory. In the future, I will go-around offset from the runway and extend before I turn crosswind. Today I have learnt something from this video
There should never had been a challenge. There was plenty of room for the pup to land. If the pup had moved right, as is standard, the cessna made a right turn rather than a left turn-out....he would have turned right in front of the pup. The only wrongs were during the go-around and turn-out, not the take-off or landing
There was about 10 of us watching and all thought it looked pretty close, however no matter how close they ended up the whole scenario need not have happened.
I fail to understand why a runway which has an offset approach (for “safety reasons”?!) and which prevents a departing ac seeing up the final approach would be used in preference to a normal, apparently safer runway (i.e. 21) when the wind conditions were so benign. The various negative effects of the offset approach and the late and low turn are significant risk factors in themselves. Now, I accept there might be some other problem with 21 (e.g. surface) but that’s not apparent in this video. Is this an example of an unjustifiable normalised behaviour? A simple risk assessment would suggest using 26 whenever the wind permits is far preferable. Please tell me what I’m missing!
FAA has some very good guidelines about airfield design and runway protection zones. The CAA should come up with the same. Central government should then force local council planners to consult with the CAA and listen to their recommendations or else be held accountable when their incredibly bad decisions affecting aviation safety result in accidents.
If the Pup had to go around because of the departing Cessna, then the pilot has noticed the Cessna. If he has, why did he fly in such a way to loose it out of sight?
I don't understand why flying NORDO or alike is still legal today. Whatever the procedures, I can't imagine this would happen if these two pilots communicated properly.
You can join at any point of the circuit, there's no straight in option due to the fuel station at the end of the runway. Everyone would conform to the circuit but where they join it would be upto them.
Beyond communications, etc. the landing traffic reaction was terrible. Go around? Where? That wasn’t a go around. That was a low approach! He never climb, he just continue flying at the same altitude over the rwy!, he never tried to turn (to the left of course) to avoid the conflict. Simply terrible and is clear that he has never read the balked landing procedure found in the POH. Finally, the conflict was never avoided! That was simply good luck
Full disclosure - I'm not a pilot but I know a lot about flying. My wife got here license at one point and I gleaned a lot of experience. Could take the yoke/stick if I had to and survive. I often take a look at situations as if I'm a 10 year old, because when you do that you tend to be unburdened by pride, so therefore worrying about being embarrassed by the comments you make, or being ridiculed by others, doesn't factor in. What you usually end up with is pure logic! The issue here is obviously the trees and shrubs at the 26 end of that runway. Those trees are surrounding the fuel & service area as pointed out in the video. If this is dangerous... WHY are they there?!! It's not like that's a residence. It's PART of the air park. Why not just cut down those trees and avoid all of this obstructed views nonsense?!!! Seriously. That's what a child would determine if he hears a grown up say "well those trees and shrubs at the end of that runway make it dangerous because the pilot on final can't see someone on the runway, and the pilot on the runway can't see anyone on final." What?!! Just cut down the damned trees! You either make the situation safe, or shorten the runway so that a plane taxiing to TO on 26 can EASILY see if they've made a mistake and visually missed someone on approach, and anyone on final can EASILY see someone on the runway about to TO. Are they going to wait until this situation plays out again and tragedy strikes? Wake up. Do the right thing. Preserve life. A 10 year could make this decision. 🤷♂🤦♂
Wikipedia: The correct spelling of the phrase is "lessons learned" because "learned" is the standard spelling of the past tense of the verb "learn" in American English, where the phrase is more common. "Learnt" is the standard spelling in British English, but the influence of American English may be causing the US spelling to replace the original British spelling. I am British :-)
Both the pilots screwed the pooch. Never, ever, position your aircraft in a position that doesn’t provide a clear and unobstructed view of the traffic on approach. That’s a day one, lesson one, non-negotiable rule. How on earth can that mistake be made, completely unacceptable. The traffic on approach, holy Jesus help me understand….. That had to be the most brainless reaction to a traffic conflict I’ve ever seen. Luck played a role in those pilots not dying. In the US, both pilots would face some pretty severe sanctions, including mandatory retraining. 91.13…….
The Beagle pilot should have just continued with his landing, the Cessna was well clear.
Always offset to one side and keep visual contact with the departing aircraft. This was a high-wing / low-wing disaster waiting to happen. Wow.
Thanks for posting this. I have flown from Popham for years and have owned a variety of typically faster/visibility restricted aircraft from there.
It’s a great place with a nice atmosphere but it’s relatively “different” to get in and out of for a host of reasons.
My personal record is 7 go arounds before finally landing for various reasons but mostly runway occupied/folk stopping on the runway/circuit spacing. This is often caused by the wide range of types including gyros (which have unusual circuit characteristics) there.
However, my observations are that:
1. Many don’t understand that an overhead join is “…required unless precluded by the cloudbase…”
2. Poor use of radio to build personal situational awareness, hampered by…
3. Overly wordy or incorrect circuit calls
4. Poor positioning on the ground preventing visual acquisition of other traffic
5. Fretting about noise areas on SkyDemon but not giving enough attention to spacing from other aircraft
6. Only having a “fly the circuit and land” plan
I believe what the event shows is a pilot trying to squeeze out of a gap in a rush (power application in the turn suggests this)
Another pilot being rather aggrieved at being made to go around
No good plan to cross to the dead side in the go around from the Pup pilot
Potentially wanting to ‘make a point’ to the Cessna pilot.
It’s rather a shame that the hazard was increased so significantly by the series of choices. I’m sure that neither pilot set out in the morning with a plan to be in this position.
There’s a bit of chat in the comments about non-UK (FAA) circuit joining rules which I think sows confusion in the UK more generally. We might be slightly weird (non-ICAO) but it’s all published and we ought to up our game as a community
Pup driver probably forgot that in the case of go around you move off the runway, to the deadside. If you don't do them very often you forget, or perhaps didn't learn, or remember learning, that rule
"Deadside"???
I must say, I've "forgotten" in so much that I am based at a left hand circuit airfield so just always felt a go-around deviates to the right of the runway. not even thought about whether it was dead side or not. Good point.
@@mike_oe UK term for the side that isn't the pattern/circuit
Popham is a great airfield & its popularity brings challenges! 😮
A great discussion video Terry, nicely done sir! 👍🏼
Thanks Geoff, at least it wasn't my incident this time :-)
Really? Always seemed to be the very worst kind of English airfield. Stupid layout, rammed full of snobby brits who think the best place to fly is in the rather miserable little caff. GA in the UK really does suck.
The best way to avoid a catastrophic incident is to recommend going into Settings and turning off collision. Also if you turn down the occlusion your respawn with occur faster.
The best thing about MSFS :-)
One of those things where listening out on the radio and absolutely clear with your intentions on the radio whilst keeping you eyes wide open is so vital. Thankfully catastrophe was avoided but this could've been so much worse. Thank you so much for sharing! Valuable insight and lessons learned all round.
Come to Headcorn, all the usual GA traffic, Helicopters, Spitfires, Hurricanes, parachutists, sky divers, wing walking, aerobatics in the overhead, model aircraft, keep your eyes open. !!
PPL ARG pilot here (250+ Hs., but not flying for 25 years), now training for a ULM license in Spain.
My take: In controlled airports, you see many a TO with ACFT in final, so this is not uncommon.
However, it seems to me that the Pup was:
1. Too high / too fast for landing, although it seemed possible
2. Did not execute a GoAround, but a flyby
3. Failed to keep the Cessna in sight while climbing
4. Did not offset to the left / "deadside" (new concept I just learned from the comments! Thanks!)
Cessna perspective / options for safer TO:
1. Maybe a bit impatient in waiting for a bigger gap?
2. Runway is +900m long (more than enough for Cessna), so TO at the TH with no visibility of oncoming traffic seems dangerous. Could you TO further ahead where you can see and others see you?
3. Could have waited at the TH before TO and used radio help from other pilots / ground and/or to wait for the Pup to land before starting TO roll...
Fell free to comment, so I can learn from more experienced pilots here
Great video TK, which I really hope will jolt a lot of folk. 30+ years pro as a training skipper, still fly multiple GA and ex-instructor and saddened at the level of misunderstanding and airmanship I often witness. If things don’t sharpen up, the bad statics will only increase. Not going to go into the blame game on this event, just observations and highlight the basics we should all be adhering to. Always be prepared to go-around, even when you touch down. A go-around is a normal manoeuvre. In the pro world, we never think ‘Landing,’ we think ‘continue!’ Clearly no info on comms, although let’s call it disheartened over the calls for almost instant comms at such a critical moment in this and many other incidents. (A-N-C!)…AVIATE, NAVIGATE, and only when safe to do so…COMMUNICATE. Communication is key yes, albeit succinct and at the appropriate moment. Why communicate when you could be ‘navigating’ towards another aircraft/obstacle, or I-LOC due to lack of your primary task - to safely aviate your aircraft. These are the basics which should be engrained and enacted by us all! Summary - Plan (and not just one plan!), prepare and brief…for the entirety of your flight. Threat and Error Management, Distraction, Situational Awareness (transmit timely radio calls), Decision Making and the real basics of A-N-C. These are all mitigating elements used professionals utilise, day in day out. Lastly, you are PIC of your aircraft. Therefore, you have total responsibility for said aircraft, any passengers you carry, and your duty is to operate your aircraft safety around other aircraft, obstacles and persons, whether you are moving or stationary. Please fly safe all 🙏🏼
Always thoughtful, inciteful and professional comments Captain, thank you.
A very interesting scenario, Terry. I have sympathy for the Cessna pilot as it appears the only way he was going to get out was in judging a wide enough gap in the inbound traffic. He looks to have made an immediate take off and there appears time enough for the Pup pilot to land… unless I’m missing something. I’ve often flown a final watching another aircraft taking off in front of me and leaving my go-around decision until the last few seconds. If the landing approach is correctly set up then a late decision to land or go around shouldn’t be a problem.
Great vid 👍👏👏
The Pup had plenty of separation to land, but on the threshold chose to stay way too high because of the Cessna in his clear view, but in actuality, it should have triggered him to simply close the throttle and reduce speed immediately since he is already flaps down and just glide in as the Cessna is taking off, no chance of either of them contacting one another. The Ole saying is "Your chances of survival are twice as good with a ground-footing and thrice as bad aloft"
Thanks Kev as always. A thoughtful and knowledgeable comment thank you sir.
@@dabneyoffermein595 The problem with committing to land while there is another plane taking off, while it looks like there is plenty of separation, is what happens if the plane on the ground aborts the take off? If that happens at just the wrong time the landing plane may not be able to avoid a collision. I suppose a runway collision is better than a mid-air though.
@@brandyballoon That is exactly why you do not commit to land. I've followed ac down Final who call Touch n Go fully anticipating I may have to Go Around until I see them wheels up. If they are still on the runway I power up, move to the deadside, re-configure and then communicate. Lucky to have trained at a busy AG airfield so decision-making was built in to every lesson by necessity!
@@ajs1691 Exactly that... configure for landing but don't commit until it's clear to do so. There's nothing wrong with flying down to a few feet above the first part of a runway and then making the decision to go around, as long as the runway has sufficient length for the landing if you decide and it's in your plan to do either and not a last minute decision.
speaking as a student pilot (33hrs at time of writing) and an air ground operator, i see this from both sides.
now as TK rightly said, we as air ground ops CANNOT issue instructions to pilots, however, with the EXCEPTION of life or death situations (aka common sense prevails) I believe we can. what we are allowed to do is pass traffic information, suggestions and advice to the pilots to aid in their decision making. We tend to see the bigger picture of the circuit and who's in it and who's waiting. if i was placing myself in this scenario (and im saying this using my own experience of A/G ops) i would have *suggested* to the cessna to hold short as there was traffic on a short final. the pilot of the cessna would still be perfectly within their right to ignore me and take off.
now as a student pilot, the way i was taught was - In a go around, move to the deadside and rejoin the circuit when appropiate - now looking at pophams chart, i can see why the beagle pup may have elected not to move to the deadside. the A303, in the event of a low altitude engine failure, would the pup have been able to clear the road safely with enough time to make a decision? i'm guessing that they may have waited for sufficient altitude to cross to the deadside in that specific circumstance. do we know this for certain, no.
I am not saying that anyone is at fault here, i'm just participating in this general discussion
these are my own personal views and in no way represent the airfield i work for, or the flying school i'm currently taught at.
Superb comment.
Low wing coming down on top of a high wing adds to the slices of cheese
So correct.
Very good video and excellent thought-provoking observations.
Pity there were no radio calls context to the clip but as you say, if I were the pilot of the Pup initiating a go around, the correct and only safe way to do this would have been to move to the dead side, assuming of course that the Pup pilot had briefed the approach beforehand and would have expected the right off-set turn out of the departing Cessna. As for the Cessna it was fait accompli for the Pup whether or not he had the right of way but certainly seemed to exhibit poor airmanship in compromising the approach. I wonder if it was later reported as a near miss.
I wasn't too sure Graham, I mean we can all see the Pup could have landed and how much space do you give to landing aircraft 1mile, 2 miles, more? I suppose the old adage that the landing isn't complete until you taxi off the runway and that the take off is not complete until you've cleaned up the airframe once airborne. I would say this was probably 50/50 and all down to airmanship, the Cessna maybe should have waited and the Pup should have moved to the left on the go-around.
@@ShortField will be interesting if either pilot watches your vid and comments Terry. I'm sure the UK Airprox Board would have a view given their safety brief. I'm sure there would be some valuable lessons to be drawn.
The Pup could have landed as Cessna airborne at far end and his Go Around did not move to the Right!
I've seen others talk about this. All of tge pilots were talking on the radio, but it sounds like they were not listening. Situation awareness and talking to the other pilots on the radio is important.
For a go-around why was the Pup pilot holding altitude down the runway ??? Almost seemed like an unplanned fly by. Go arounds in my C152 are not flat like that.
I’m wondering if he was trying to keep the Cessna in sight?
@@nigelclinning2448 maybe mate, but then he should have extended left, looked like a formation join up 😆
Maybe a reminder to take from our airline friends that really every approach should be flown as if the GA is mandatory, until it becomes clear that it’s definitely safe to commit to a landing. In this case perhaps the landing pilot wasn’t expecting to have to fly a GA and hadn’t mentally prepared for the best way to accomplish that. I agree with you that immediately moving to the deadside would have been preferable.
I had to read that serval times to work out that you meant go around (GA) and not general aviation, which is what I normally see GA being used to refer to.
@@catherinekilgour2563yes sorry that wasn’t terribly clear!
Thanx for the new one Terry!
Excellent content from real life and current possibility.
Sure to be used by instructors if they find it!
Good vid👍
It has to be assumed by the Pup it was not seen by the Cessna even though the Pup. I would say that since the Pup established a go around due to seeing the Cessna taking off, the onus was again on the Pup to steer clear.
Seeing as take offs can be unpredicable for multiple reasons, despite both knowing the NoFly area, I would say the Pup, made a quick check of the right shoulder, than made an emmidiate a harder right, being a right hand circuit, exiting circuit to the right and doing a go around.
Cheers
Cheers Patrick, that was an option I didn't consider, an immediate right turn by the Pup would have taken back to downwind however it's a very noise sensitive area and not a manoeuvre that would have been appreciated. Thanks so much sir.
@@ShortField
Yes, but safety supercedes noise abatement protocals. I dont think you should get any complaints for a one off, and it will be easily expained should there be some.
Cheers
I agree noise abatement is a nice to have but decisive action is mandatory. I would never consider noise abatement over safety.
Terry. The Pup did not do a go around, he did a fast pass. A go-around includes a climb, immediately after the radio call that should have announced it. Likewise the Cessna should have communicated his take off. A total non-event turned into something by dubious airmanship. Lessons learned.
You said everything I was thinking!
Thanks Terry!!!
When I was a young man landing on RWY25 now 26 we had to fly through a gap between a line of protected trees banking and flaring at the same time, happy days. oh and sometimes we had to low fly along the runway to scare the sheep into a corner Lolz!
Sheep no longer an issue :-)
@@ShortField Hahaha!
Here in the US, Federal Air Regulations make no rules, other than see and avoid other aircraft, about uncontrolled airfields because to do so would be deceiving. Electronics have made some of our pilots think they are in a pilot controlled situation. This is not the situation, as we observe too often.
We have the same Jimmy but we do have some basic guidelines/rules although everything is subjective and it's no good being 'DEAD' right so best just fly defensively and assume every other pilot is trying to kill you :-)
Great video Terry. Thanks! I guess the Cessna Pilot should have given way to the landing aircraft. But that assumes the landing pilot made the correct Base and Final to Land Calls.
Hi Terry, another great Video. Thanks for sharing
Lack of radio recordings is unfortunate. If both pilots talked on radio as they should have, then cessna would know that beagle was on short final and beagle, most importantly, would know that there is traffic rolling. Then when beagle decided to go around, he would expect the conflict and sidestep.
However, when you are on short final, especially into a short soft field, you really don't want extra distractions( these landins are extra challenging). I think the cessna was in the wrong (assuming beagle was announcing his position and intentions).
My lesson here: don't take the runway with traffic on short final even if it looks like you can sneak out in time
Pup should have just landed or if that wasn’t appropriate, done a proper go around rather than just a low approach and fly past
Great video Terry. Very useful back to basics content.
From the time delay between the cessna starting its take off roll and the pup flying over the approach end i would expect the distance to be about 500 meters and if the pup would have continued its approach and slowed down rather than go around the distance likely would have been enough for the cessna to be airborne prior to the pup touching down. This doesn’t strike me as particularly close. It is not any closer than I have experienced on some approaches at my airport which is controlled (canada). An aircraft cleared for departure that gets on its way a little slow, and you are either sent going around or you have to fly along at a few feet high until the other aircraft has lifted off and you get clearance to touch down. If you are sent to go around you just offset to the right so you can easily see the other aircraft and then match their speed.
European circuits being so intricately laid out should be particularly easy as every turn is specified on the vac (at least in switzerland). Also, as a glider pilot I guess I am a little more comfortable with flying very close to other aircraft particularly when they are going the same way.
Poor performance can happen no matter how simple the task, I think this was a case of bad judgement by both commanders.
Definitely worth an airprox report
Love your videos. They help me think about what I might do in a situation, in advance of perhaps one day encountering it after getting my PPL. I believe the kind of thought you promote with your videos is healthy, and helps prepare pilots and wanna-be pilots because you help viewers to think about what the safeest and best actions might be in various scenarios. This thinking in advance IS learning and you may have saved a few lives already, simply by creating the many videos you have already created, and helping so many people develop. Bravo, and thank you! Love your content!
You are too kind thank you so much Captain.
Great video! as always thought provoking. Apart from thinking that you plan your day so you don’t have that need to get out quick, not much else to add.
Loved seeing Popham again. Have a lot of very fond memories. Dick (I think that was his nsme) had the aeroplane climbing frame put in as a result of our kids! Dad’s ashes were spread there too. Never did any flying there myself (didn’t get into it until moving to nz), but always visit when I’m home.
Wow didn't know you were one of us Sarah :-) Thank you as always.
As a student, I would have moved to left dead side, kept airspeed and visual contact with traffic until safe to continue with the circuit.
You will be a great qualified pilot.
I think there is a lot more to do in this scenario
Wow that was close😮😮😮.
Aeronautical decision making is a skill.
Both a landing or go around would have been possibilities here.
The safest one is a go around however just in case the cessna rejects.
Very interesting incident.
Thanks for the video. Close call. Not sure what I'd have done in that situation.
I don’t like to speculate but to me it’s clear that the Cessna was trying to take off quickly, knowing the Pup was coming. You can see his wings bumping up and down aggressively as he taxis quickly towards the threshold and his line up turn is also fast, with an immediate take off.
Impatience and ego kill people in aviation. When are we going to learn?
Bad decision to go around. Poor execution of the go around. Poor communication by both, they should use and listen to their radios.
It's never a bad decision to go around if that's what you have to do. The Cessna should never have taken off because of this possibility of a go around
@@JRadventures96where is the go around? I don’t see it.
I’m not a pilot or an Air Traffic, but I am an ex techy, I have taught EASA safety to ATSEP staff and can’t fathom here why would pilots not talk to the ATC? Let alone not even use their radios? This seems like make it up as you go along… where is all the flight safety, training and procedure?
Is this just a bunch of civvie slacker amateurs waiting for an early grave?
@@loveplanesGo around, as in fly runway heading to rejoin the circuit. We just didn't see the eventual turn.
Cessna should have waited with an aircraft on final. But it also looks like the Beagle was planning a flyby instead of an actual landing and was way too cavalier about getting close to the departing aircraft. Poor decision making from both.
My first visit to Popham as a relatively low hours taildragger pilot, flying at SF25C with 15m wings this Saturday. Was glad to see it was unusually quiet. With the amount of noise abatement areas it was high on my "what if's" list on needing to abandon a circuit at any point. We had a departing aircraft when descending deadside, and it took a little bit of thinking as to where to overfly to avoid both them and noise sensitive areas. In this case, once the Pup pilot had decided to go around (and nobody can ever be bashed for going around if it doesn't feel right), holding the offset approach heading or even going for the extended centreline of 03/21 would've worked a lot better. Turning inside the Cessna wasn't bright, if the local procedures had been read and understood then the Pup should've known they were about to make a right turn for noise abatement. put themselves in a very risky place. The Cessna was hustling as best they could, that taxi up the hill was not short of speed! Great analysis Terry all the same, its videos like these that get us thinking for when it might happen to us.
This appears to be a case of two minor errors adding up to the holes in the cheese almost aligning, thankfully they didn't.
Agree Algy, little things add up, that's for sure. Thank you as always for the comment, watch and support sir.
You see all the time where people create dangerous/difficult situations in the name of making the safe decision, where actually it wasn't necessary at all, simply a *little extra intestinal fortitude was required.
I think that's what really happened here. Although it's also true that the Cessna pilot could have been more careful.
Probably 50/50 but I am sometimes guilty of poor airmanship and I suppose nobody got hurt.
immediately side step and establish radio communication with the cessna about what YOU are doing to avoid them.
can't believe they let the 172 disappear under their nose...
If aircraft on the runway cannot be seen by approaching traffic surely the only safe options are a) it becomes a controlled airfield, or b) the runway is shortened so aircraft can be seen (or c), don't put the runway in that spot to begin with)
Nonsense.
For such and many many other reasons there are established radio communication protocols in uncontrolled fields. If both pilots followed them, there would be no problems
Close call! May I feature this sequence in one of my next episodes? Of course with a link back to your original video. Keep up the great work!
It looks like there is hardly any wind, so why not use 21 for landings and 26 for take offs?
I learnt at White Waltham and go arounds on busy days are as common as landings, but if you're not familiar or have not practised one for a while it can be confusing, which is what I imagine happened here. Startle factor as the pup pilot sees the Cessna, pause to deicde if they can land safely, abort decision and then forgotten deadside go around. I hope it's not a White Waltham Pup!
Easy mistake to make, everyone walked / flew away and the lessons we learn from are always the hardest.
I had a close call with a PC12 at Popham that decended straight into the downwind as we were departing downwind, as per procedure. Again we survived but I may have had a chat on the radio with the pilot of the PC12!
Sorry Chris missed your comment, hope you are well.
A radio call on final by the Pup and a rolling radio call by the 172 should have alerted both as to what the situation was. Great video Terry and an excellent learning opportunity for all. Thanks for posting.
Classic high wing, low wing visibility issue. See Johnson Creek midair.
With power pilots there's too much emphasis on go rounds IMO.
Did the Cessna call "rolling or "departing" on the radio?
There was plenty of time IMO for Pup to land in that instance.
Glider pilots get very proficient at landing 1st time every time.
If power pilots had the same mind set, maybe there would be less unnecessary go rounds?!
(I fly gliders and power)
I didn't hear or record the radio, it's uncontrolled but I would have thought he did and it would have been fine if he had moved off the runway.
Maybe the Pup pilot was worried about wake turbulence from the "heavy" Cessna.
That’s Dale from Spectrumgeeks Cessna - not saying he was flying but he has a share in that plane.
Yup, as you mention I have a share in OG, however this was not me flying on this occasion.
Witnessing the comments/views over such things as, ‘takeoff is optional, landing is mandatory’ (a landing is never mandatory!), and both aircraft operators should have ‘stamped’ on the radio whilst performing, let’s call it a missed approach/low approach, is fundamentally incorrect. What is mandatory is Air Law dictated by the ANO, which you should all be well versed. Communicate yes, albeit at the appropriate moment. Again…Aviate, Navigate and when appropriate…Communicate.
Not enough information unfortunately. Cessna pilot might not have seen the Beagle. Did the beagle made the call and when ?
Any reason not to use the 21 rwy for arrivals ? That grass and leaves not moving and flags look limp.
In dangerous situations, we are allowed to brake any rule if needed to assure safety of flight. So when juggling lives at risk vs someones noise annoyance, it is quite obvious.
Also the fact that we are supposed to always turn right to avoid collision might have played a role in his initial indecision.
In the end Beagle might have had right of way, but was in higher energy state, thus only one to solve the situation.
Just stumbled upon this SERA.3210 Right-of-way : "an aircraft that is aware that the manoeuvrability of another aircraft is impaired shall give way to that aircraft."
obviously its not intended to be abused nor as a means to solve after disputes. But given the situation as a correct response.
Not sure i get the go around. To be honest, if the Pup was almost down and did see the Cessna, surely he could tell it was well into its departure! But his go around wasn't great eaither. Being the lower aircraft and starting to climb out he would loose visual on the Cessna. So why didn't he start a turn into the circuit and join midway down wind?
Am sure a lot of local pilots can put me right on this field.
Personally, I would have just continued the landing.
I would have gone around assuming there was no radio communication that is. I would however have moved to the left of the centre line, firstly to keep him in sight for as long as possible and secondly because I would have guessed he would be turning right on climb out.
I think it looks much closer on the video that it actually was. The radio calls of position could have avoided this from happening.
it's hard to form an opinion, because I don't see the situation from my "normal" angle 😅 anyway, I would have either landed (if in full landing config already), or I would have climbed rather steep (at Vx), because of the flying obstacle ahead of me! 😂 definitely keeping a lookout on the Cessna, as well as the surrounding airspace, because when there is one conflicting traffic, there can be another one, too
YIKES! I PREFER: get lateral for visibility, on the outside of expected pattern, with plenty of room, & communicate that aircraft taking off is "lead" ..I will yield ..
Why? I am OVERTAKING with higher energy, turning off gives proximity space..space increases visibility..shallow bank early to vector away vs losing visibility rolling away closer..
@ This site, with unique fknal approach, I wouldn't take runway if ANYONE had declared final or BASE for that matter..I'd wait till they had cleared.
Formation flying instruction can really come in handy to have better confidence, knowledge & experience to deal with close proximity maneuvering..maintaining visibility is KEY
great video! quick question for you, how do you generate your animations ? I see you use Google Earth for the mapping but your annimations on top of it are really good for explaining things.
Anyway very informative - thank you for your work
Thanks so much. I use Google Earth Studio and After Effects to create the graphics, it's quite a quick process with consistent results.
As others have said, better radio announcements by both pilots and the Pup moving to the left off the runway line when he saw the Cessna would have contributed to a less ‘exciting’ near miss. I call it a near miss because just a bit more speed from the Pup or a faster climb from the Cessna could have resulted in a collision. It could of course be that the low wing of the Pup meant he didn’t see the Cessna until it was right underneath him, but again clear radio calls should have prevented the situation.
Do wonder why Popham have let all those bushes grow up on the side of the runway, cutting them back to allow landing aircraft a better view of the runway hold point would seem sensible?
I’ve been startled at Popham before now, crossing from deadside to join the 21 circuit, with a departing aircraft off 26 climbing right underneath me. It can get busy on fly-in’s and you’ve got to keep an excellent lookout.
Dan Gryders on the money...people need to talk more. Anyway, 182 should have faced finals thru screen, but agree on deadside.. looks like Pup hadn't read the Popham spiel.
It is hard to make a judgement without access to the radio calls. Did the Cessna call "lining up for immediate departure"? Did the Pup call "short final to land"? When the Pup elected to go around, did he call "going around"? Did the Cessna respond with "We will be turning right"? I believe go-arounds should be conducted to the R of the runway, that is certainly true in FAA-land: "Maneuver the aircraft to the right side of the runway to avoid conflicting traffic. This is especially important if the go-around was caused by someone taking off in front of you." If so, that should have alerted the Cessna pilot to a risk of collision. This incident appears to be caused by poor airmanship by one or the other or both.
As shown, the pup seems to be in the wrong, could have landed with no issues. I think his reaction was to move to the right out of habit but it should be to the dead side, easy to mess that up. Once he's behind the departing Cessna common sense dictates only he can provide separation. I'm always hesitant to make any comment because such things are common. If the Cessna had taken off 20 seconds later everything would be much tighter.
Probably 50/50 I'd say.
How could the Pup be wrong if he is having to react to a dangerous situation that could have been entirely prevented if the departing Cessna had given way to landing traffic as the rules state??
ADS-B in and out. should be trivial standard in all main displays. same as air radio
Its crazy how many planes fly over my house with no adsb and possibly nordo. Its legal yes but so what. Like that float plane accident in florida. I hear that guy was all about no radios and adsb which lead to the midair.
Surely, the pilot landing, having seen the conflict, should have kept visual contact with the departing aircraft throughout.
I can guarantee you there was no radio conversation. Non-towered airports don’t require pilots to make position reports so things like this happen more often than you think.
I’ve had people cut me off in a traffic pattern, almost land on top of me while I was taking the runway in the US. And every time, their excuse was “I don’t have to make radio calls at a non-towered airport.”
When I worked in the Bahamas flying a 1900, a guy in a Cessna 402 almost hit us while we were setting up for final coming into North Eluthra because and I quote, “It’s not towered. I don’t need to talk on the radio.”
I face the same "luddite response" at my busy uncontrolled airfield. It's selfish and arrogant response uttered by old fools in old planes who know everything and are happy to prove it. 😒
I'm sorry, but your comment is incorrect. I am based at Popham. There would have been radio calls...and those radio calls, had they been included, could paint a very different picture.
@@microlightkeith7395 might be a difference in requirements between FAA and EASA. FAA and CAA-B don’t require position reports at non-towered airports.
@@peterthoshinsky6468 it seems like it’s worse when dealing with Light Sport guys. We have an idiot at the airport I fly out of who has an ultralight (the one that’s a hang glider with that tricycle and the huge fan on the back). He’s notorious for just doing whatever the hell he wants and has nearly caused several accident.
Hard to say without radio calls.
BUT imho, the C172 should have waited at the hold (gethomeitus?) longer as the BP had the right of way 'finals to land'.
The BP, although wishing to avoid an incident and building a margin for error, did the right thing by going around (no point in being in the right but dead!). However the BP should have used (been aware of) the dead-side to go around procedure - thus separation/time to assess, plus better visibility of the C172. To my mind that's what a dead-side go around is all about (sometimes hard with multiple runways, Eg grass and hard, as at Kemble).
But a case of - a perfect storm - there by the grace of God, go I?
💜💜✌️✌️😊😊
Why not to depart from the intersection just in front of the C172? I think it would have had 700 mts at least... Not to operate that way on every departure but given the circumstances... Regarding the landing aircraft.. I would have landed.. BUT if not.. your recommended option would have been also my course of action. Thank you for sharing.
Where is the incident? It is VFR traffic, second plane saw Cessna and kept it in sight.
Think you missed the point of the video, VFR stands for Visual Flight Rules there are still flight RULES the main one being see and avoid, however the discussion here is how they got so close and what what you do to not put yourself in this situation? Thanks for the comment.
@@ShortField As there is no specified minimum distance between planes during VFR, I would assume, the pilot of second aircraft is sane and keeps it safe. That was my point.
Kai Tak of the Home Counties.
Do they have the Trumpton fire brigade standing by on busy days?
Why weren't those trees cut down and that blind spot flattened out a long time ago?
Somebody commented on here that performing a go-around was a poor decision.
Wrong.
It was the correct decision, although not positioned correctly.
Any aircraft that is on or just left the runway is not a clean runway; therefore, remove yourself from the hazard by carrying out a go-around. Go-around is easy and fun (in my opinion) and you don't loose any face, in fact you can pat yourself on the back or get a positive comment from the tower (I've had that radioed to me). The problem Cessna should have waited and I have learnt a lot from not being hasty at the hold. Remember, takeoff is optional, landing is mandatory.
In the future, I will go-around offset from the runway and extend before I turn crosswind.
Today I have learnt something from this video
There is no go around
Decend stay below the cessna and pass to the right
There should never had been a challenge. There was plenty of room for the pup to land. If the pup had moved right, as is standard, the cessna made a right turn rather than a left turn-out....he would have turned right in front of the pup. The only wrongs were during the go-around and turn-out, not the take-off or landing
It didnt look that close to me. The aircraft will both have been doing similar speeds. One was behind the other.
There was about 10 of us watching and all thought it looked pretty close, however no matter how close they ended up the whole scenario need not have happened.
I fail to understand why a runway which has an offset approach (for “safety reasons”?!) and which prevents a departing ac seeing up the final approach would be used in preference to a normal, apparently safer runway (i.e. 21) when the wind conditions were so benign. The various negative effects of the offset approach and the late and low turn are significant risk factors in themselves. Now, I accept there might be some other problem with 21 (e.g. surface) but that’s not apparent in this video. Is this an example of an unjustifiable normalised behaviour? A simple risk assessment would suggest using 26 whenever the wind permits is far preferable. Please tell me what I’m missing!
Is the C172 allowed to hold before the displaced threshold to wait for arrivals, given arrivals won't fly over it because it's sheltered by trees?
If the Cessna did see incoming traffic they should have waited. To be fair putting no fly zones on either end of the runway isn't the best design.
Why would you level off and fly down the runway level like that? Either sidestep and have the departing traffic in sight, or at least climb...
FAA has some very good guidelines about airfield design and runway protection zones. The CAA should come up with the same. Central government should then force local council planners to consult with the CAA and listen to their recommendations or else be held accountable when their incredibly bad decisions affecting aviation safety result in accidents.
If the Pup had to go around because of the departing Cessna, then the pilot has noticed the Cessna. If he has, why did he fly in such a way to loose it out of sight?
Pup needs canons...
😂
Lessons to be LEARNED...
Why don’t they use the other runway for arrivals? That would make everything more simple.
That would make sense but that runway is blind to the tower even though this field is uncontrolled.
What about ADSB, does that not work in this environment, does it have to be IN and OUT? how does that work? (If that's even a solution)
I don't think so, it's a handy en-route tool but not really something you'd need or want at close quarters like this. Nice comment though thanks.
@@ShortField Thank you so much for getting back to me on this. Sounds like just good ole radio communications is best practice
Why not recover on 21 and takeoff on 27?
Good point I don't know.
I don't understand why flying NORDO or alike is still legal today. Whatever the procedures, I can't imagine this would happen if these two pilots communicated properly.
Why arent the flyers not expected to do a circuit on every arrival?
You can join at any point of the circuit, there's no straight in option due to the fuel station at the end of the runway. Everyone would conform to the circuit but where they join it would be upto them.
Should of had better unicom exchanges and pilots.
Beyond communications, etc. the landing traffic reaction was terrible. Go around? Where? That wasn’t a go around. That was a low approach! He never climb, he just continue flying at the same altitude over the rwy!, he never tried to turn (to the left of course) to avoid the conflict. Simply terrible and is clear that he has never read the balked landing procedure found in the POH.
Finally, the conflict was never avoided! That was simply good luck
Full disclosure - I'm not a pilot but I know a lot about flying. My wife got here license at one point and I gleaned a lot of experience. Could take the yoke/stick if I had to and survive. I often take a look at situations as if I'm a 10 year old, because when you do that you tend to be unburdened by pride, so therefore worrying about being embarrassed by the comments you make, or being ridiculed by others, doesn't factor in. What you usually end up with is pure logic! The issue here is obviously the trees and shrubs at the 26 end of that runway. Those trees are surrounding the fuel & service area as pointed out in the video. If this is dangerous... WHY are they there?!! It's not like that's a residence. It's PART of the air park. Why not just cut down those trees and avoid all of this obstructed views nonsense?!!! Seriously. That's what a child would determine if he hears a grown up say "well those trees and shrubs at the end of that runway make it dangerous because the pilot on final can't see someone on the runway, and the pilot on the runway can't see anyone on final." What?!! Just cut down the damned trees! You either make the situation safe, or shorten the runway so that a plane taxiing to TO on 26 can EASILY see if they've made a mistake and visually missed someone on approach, and anyone on final can EASILY see someone on the runway about to TO. Are they going to wait until this situation plays out again and tragedy strikes? Wake up. Do the right thing. Preserve life. A 10 year could make this decision. 🤷♂🤦♂
It would make much more sense to clear those trees out of the way and create better taxing patterns for everyone.
Nordo?
What is the problem
Imagine your wife in the right seat seeing that plane pop up in the windscreen, that would be it done with stupidity.
Lesson to be *learned* not learnt.......
Wikipedia: The correct spelling of the phrase is "lessons learned" because "learned" is the standard spelling of the past tense of the verb "learn" in American English, where the phrase is more common. "Learnt" is the standard spelling in British English, but the influence of American English may be causing the US spelling to replace the original British spelling. I am British :-)
Both the pilots screwed the pooch. Never, ever, position your aircraft in a position that doesn’t provide a clear and unobstructed view of the traffic on approach. That’s a day one, lesson one, non-negotiable rule. How on earth can that mistake be made, completely unacceptable. The traffic on approach, holy Jesus help me understand….. That had to be the most brainless reaction to a traffic conflict I’ve ever seen. Luck played a role in those pilots not dying. In the US, both pilots would face some pretty severe sanctions, including mandatory retraining. 91.13…….