78 SA Flyer Magazine
Uncontrolled airports
at popular holiday
destinations around South
Africa saw commercial
operators jostling with
private trafc and their
operating procedures.
S
OUTH Africa has many more
uncontrolled airelds than
public airports manned by
air trafc controllers. The
larger unmanned airports are
feeling the effects of growing
commercial operations
mixing in with the private and recreational
air trafc for which they were originally
developed. Private airelds that serve
tourism and other businesses, such as
game lodges and tourist resorts, also see
a blend of commercial unscheduled and
scheduled ights operating amongst private
non-commercial trafc.
IFR VERSUS VFR
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) are radically different
disciplines and are largely incompatible
with each other. Up in the ight levels, VFR
and IFR trafc are generally separated
from each other by way of being allocated
different altitudes as part of the semicircular
rule, while the turbines and jets are mostly
in the IFR only upper ight levels.
The system works well. However,
IFR and VFR ights converge and are
forced to mix it up with each other at
airports. It is mostly for this reason that
we have controlled airspaces around
such airports, and air trafc services that
ensure separation between all incoming
and departing trafc, whether the trafc is
operating under IFR or VFR.
That system works well too, and there
are a number of regulations that guide air
trafc controllers in maintaining aircraft
separation.
But the majority of our smaller airports
fall within uncontrolled Class G airspace
and do not enjoy the luxury of a manned
tower to sequence trafc in and out.
Nevertheless, these airports support
private VFR trafc as well as scheduled
and unscheduled commercial trafc, which
AOPA BRIEFING
Chris Martinus ‒ Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association – South Africa
UNCONTROLLED APPROACH
Bob Corbett
How should private and commercial
traffic integrate at uncontrolled airfields?
Unmanned joining procedures
adopted in most countries.
Improves safety for both
private and commercial traffic.
Boldmethod
79 SA Flyer Magazine
generally operates under IFR.
Because there are such substantial
differences between these two disciplines,
conicts and confusion often arise between
the pilots of IFR and VFR ights.
UNMANNED AIRPORT PROCEDURES
Unmanned (also known as uncontrolled
or non-towered) airports are essentially
pilot-controlled airports. Aside from a few
basic rules governing right-of-way, trafc
sequencing and separation are governed
by cooperation between pilots using
common sense and taking responsibility for
their actions and decisions.
Regulators are reluctant to publish
rigid general procedures which may not
be applicable to every airport. Instead, at
airports where there are unique challenges,
there may be specic published procedures
to deal with aspects such as terrain,
neighbouring controlled airspace, noise
concerns, left- and right-hand circuits, etc.
Our regulations, like those in most
countries, are consistent with ICAO
standards and emphasise that the
responsibility for separation and safety
lies with the pilots alone. CARs 91.06.11
& 12 are emphatic that “nothing relieves
the pilot from the responsibility for taking
such action as will best aid to avert
collision” and that the pilot must “observe
other aerodrome trafc for the purpose of
avoiding collision.”
Pilots must take into account the lowest
common denominators in an unmanned
environment: aircraft in the circuit may be
piloted by solo student pilots who have
no special knowledge of other aircraft
performance or that other aircraft may be
operating under IFR – and what that entails
– and that aircraft are not required to be
equipped with such basic equipment as
radios.
These unmanned airports are often
favoured by ight schools and pilots of
vintage aircraft that do not even have
electrical systems. It is essential that more
experienced pilots ying far better equipped
aircraft make themselves well aware
that, as ICAO states, “some international
general aviation operations (typically under
5,700 kg) would be performed by crews
less experienced and less skilled, with
less reliable equipment, to less rigorous
standards and with greater freedom of
action than in commercial air transport
operations.”
CAR Part 91 makes no bones about it.
The pilot in command carries the ultimate
responsibility for safe operations at airports
where there is no air trafc service. And the
more experienced and qualied the pilot,
the greater his responsibility towards his
or her passengers and the occupants of
other aircraft in the vicinity. Part 135 or 121
operations require additional standards and
operations manuals that take into account
the circumstances at destination airports.
Especially when ying to uncontrolled
airports with private trafc, those
commercial aircrews must be competent
and familiar with both their operations
manuals and Part 91 requirements.
It would therefore be reckless for
a commercial ight carrying paying
passengers, ying heads-down IFR in
Visual Meteorological Conditions, to
bomb in on a straight-in approach to a
busy unmanned aireld and expect VFR
trafc to magically part before it. Those
aircraft in the circuit are not aware of the
incoming aircraft’s IFR ight plan, nor are
they equipped or even allowed to adopt
any procedures other than those ordinarily
applicable to VFR operations at an
unmanned airport.
Incoming IFR aircraft have no option
but to break off their approach and conform
to the trafc pattern, as must departing
IFR trafc conform and visually maintain
separation until clear of the trafc pattern.
Incoming trafc must at the very least yield
to trafc on base and nal approach. To do
otherwise would be to dangerously, and
illegally, cut ahead of aircraft that have a
clear right-of-way.
This does not mean that an IFR ight
must close its ight plan before entering
the trafc pattern or switch between VFR
and IFR. It simply means that both IFR
and VFR trafc carry the responsibility
for maintaining visual separation in the
absence of air trafc service, whether it be
advisory or mandatory.
The rules of engagement do differ from
country to country, however. Germany
and some others simply do not permit IFR
trafc in class G airspace at all. The United
States has a more liberal approach which
takes into account that there is usually
radar coverage and nearby ATC that can
assist IFR trafc into and out of unmanned
airelds. Even so, ATC may not release an
IFR ight for takeoff, nor allow another IFR
ight to commence an approach until the
AOPA BRIEFING
SA Flyer 2013|02
SA Flyer 2018|02
Nico van Staden 083 321 0916
nico@aerostratus.co.za
Mary Ann 083 778 9293
All aircraft prices are subject to change or withdrawal from the market without notice. All prices exclude VAT
1967 Beechcraft Baron B-56TC
1972 Cessna C-210L
Pitts Special S2S
MONSTER BARON – 380 HP a side!!!
TTSN – 2790 SMOH L&R – 790
New paint and loaded with equipment!!
Aircraft still US registered, no damage history
All logs since new. Collectors Baron only 93 built.
Must be one of the best B-56’s in the world
TT 3320 SMOH 770
Great value for money!!
R 1 250 000
A real Gem factory built S2S. Previously owned
by Patty Wagstaff. New fabric TT 2545
SMOH 1400. R 950 000
SPECIALIZING IN TURNKEY AIRCRAFT SHIPPING
WORLDWIDE!!! 10 AIRCRAFT SHIPPED IN THE PAST YEAR!!
WE HAVE IMPORT- EXPORT PERMITS & TAX
CLEARANCES TO SHIP YOUR AIRCRAFT IMMEDIATELY!
80 SA Flyer Magazine
previous one has closed his ight plan in
the air or on the ground.
In the US, ATC may never schedule
more than one IFR ight at a time in the
unmanned trafc zone. We don’t have even
that small luxury in South Africa, so the
pilots must carry all responsibility.
PRIORITY
There are no regulations that give IFR
trafc priority over VFR trafc or larger
commercial aircraft priority over smaller
private aircraft, even in controlled airspace.
ATC may give aircraft experiencing an
emergency and those on ight plans priority
and must give aircraft carrying heads of
state priority over everyone else, but that
is it.
In controlled airspaces, ATC are
inclined to prioritise commercial IFR ights,
and pilots therefore tend to assume that the
same applies at unmanned airports when
that is not the case at all.
There can simply be no effective
mechanism for prioritising trafc in an
environment that relies upon cooperation
between participants, when there are those
who place emphasis on their own perceived
self-importance.
However, natural laws automatically
dictate that faster aircraft will tend to y
wider circuits than the slower ivvers that
are inclined to keep it tight. This equalises
the different speeds of the aircraft ying
around the circuit and allows the pilots to
jockey themselves into an orderly sequence
for landing.
This fundamental and effective system
allows large groups of pilots, sometimes as
many as a hundred in air races, to easily
and safely sequence themselves for landing
without any assistance from controllers on
the ground. They can even comfortably
deal with in-circuit emergencies.
Departing trafc is usually forced to
use a rst-come-rst-served rule, since
overtaking on taxiways is impractical.
Although pilots of smaller private
aircraft often wish to display courtesy
and ‘airmanship’ by yielding to larger
commercial trafc, it is usually less
confusing and thus quicker and safer to stay
in sequence and just get on with clearing
the trafc pattern without introducing your
own personal rules.
Mid-air collisions at unmanned airelds
are relatively rare. Those that do occur are
generally due to pilots failing to take into
account the blind spots ahead and below or
behind them.
GENERAL JOINING RULE
Although it is deliberately not enshrined
in the regulations, South Africa and several
Commonwealth countries adopt the
overhead approach where incoming trafc
joins at 2,000 ft above and perpendicular to
the runway and then descends on the ‘dead
side’ to join the downwind leg.
This procedure is generally liked, since
it provides the pilot with every opportunity
to view the runway for obstacles, observe
wind direction from the windsock and begin
to sequence him or herself into trafc in
the circuit. There are nevertheless some
instances where crossing overhead the
runway may be inadvisable, such as at
airelds where glider winching operations
are active.
Although this joining procedure adds
a minute or two over a blind straight-in
approach, the safety benets eclipse any
commercial considerations.
CONCLUSION
Safe and expeditious operations
at unmanned airelds rely upon a
cooperative spirit between all of the pilots
engaged in aviation there. At the core of
that cooperative spirit is the humility to
recognise that even the least experienced
and equipped of the participants must be
accommodated – for the safety of all of us.
AOPA BRIEFING
1980 Cessna 551 Citation II Single Pilot
TT 9810 CSN 7458 2 x 2 500 lb/min. P & W JT15-D4 engines; SMOH (LH) 1930 [180 SHSI] SMOH (RH)
430 hours (TBO 3500) Fresh Part 135 Phase 1-5 Nov. 2017. Cessna avionics, GNS 530, Primus 400
Radar, Radar alt., Dual TPDR, HSI, Dual RMI, 4” ADI, Artex 406 KHz ELT. One rated PPL or CPL with IR + 8
passengers. GW 12500 lb; EW 7854 Useful load 4 646 Ceil. 28 000 ft. 640 km/h; 600 l/h;
1800 km or
3.2 h + res. R 7.5 m excl. VAT NEG. Contact: Johan 082 550 3665 | admin@christav.co.za
Pilots are able to safely separate themselves even at busy
uncontrolled airstrips sometimes encountered during air races.
j
Chris Martinus
