Tree on final approach to Batumi

[wernst]

I'd mind it if this was a regular landing direction.

 

Judging from this, it isn't:

 

https://www.google.de/maps/@41.6104354,41.6028119,2648m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

I see no rubber-marks at all on the approach end of RWY 31. If this direction is not cleared for traffic, why would they care about trees?

 

not cleared for trafic?? Regular landing direction?

Does a RWY only have one "regular" landing drection which will be cleared for landing?

What about nasty winds which might sometimes blow from north not knowing the official landing direction?

You'll cleared to a RWY direction which allows a safe landing - NOT regardless of wind direction.

And the final landing decision lies in the hand of the PIC only! Regardless of any clearance., it's iron rule of flying.

BTW, the google foto shows that in real Batumi the trees are about 200m away from threshold 31.

That's ok with me and ok with any gilde slope.

Edited February 5, 2018 by wernst

[=Pedro=]

The clutter and trees make landings more fun you guys

 

Indeed :thumbup:

[Ironhand]

not cleared for trafic?? Regular landing direction?

Does a RWY only have one "regular" landing drection which will be cleared for landing?

...

In the case of places like Batumi, yes. Landing there, for instance, is from the sea only. RW13 is used only for takeoff and even that is restricted to daytime hours, aircraft with MTOW of 5700 kg or less. If conditions are too severe to land, you'll be diverted elsewhere.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Ironhand

[wernst]

In the case of places like Batumi, yes. Landing there, for instance, is from the sea only. RW13 is used only for takeoff and even that is restricted to daytime hours, aircraft with MTOW of 5700 kg or less. If conditions are too severe to land, you'll be diverted elsewhere.

 

From where did you get these restricitions: "from sea only" - "MTOW 5700 kg or less" - ". . .severe to land, you'll be diverted elsewhere".

 

Please have a look on the APPRCH Charts for UGKS attached here.

One is from DCS the other is from AIP Georgia.

Both charts show 31 procedures, for instrument and visual.

 

Do you really want to say that if landing on 13 is "too severe" (e.g. because of northerly wind) the pilot will NOT be cleared for 31 but has to fly to an alternate ??!! Really?!

 

Please learn that only the PIC has the final landing decision, according to

 

The U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines "pilot in command" as:

The person who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight

 

Full stop.

Edited February 5, 2018 by wernst

[cypc]

Please have a look on the APPRCH Charts for UGKS attached here.

One is from DCS the other is from AIP Georgia.

Both charts show 31 procedures, for instrument and visual.

 

As bbrz said, your first document is a SID (Standard Instrument Departure) chart from runway 31, not a landing procedure.

 

In fact, if you take a look at the full document, you can find departure charts for runway 31 only, and arrival charts (STAR and IAC) for runway 13 only.

[wernst]

This is a joke, isn't it. The 'approach chart' from the AIP is an SID!!!

 

Furhermore you are seriously mistaken if you think that a pilot can do what he wants.

 

If this runway isn't available for landing, for whatever reason, you as the PIC can't simply state: I have the final authority. I do want I 'think' is safe.

 

I'm of course not simply saying "that a pilot can do what he wants". Where did I say this?

(This would be as stupid as saying that a pilot should be directed to an alternate airport when RWY 13 has northerly wind while RWY 31 is obviously safe)

 

Before further commenting emotionally on the responsibilty of a PIC pls study the Annex 2 (ICAO) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, section 2.3.1.

I'm just referring to these written rules and not any assumption out from the stomach.

 

And, finally, after 30 years flying with q CPL, I have never, never heard that a plane will be directed to an alternate when one RWY direction is not (wind) safe while the opposite direction is.

(Exceptions apply for drunken ATC's only)

Edited February 5, 2018 by wernst

[firmek]

Yes, sure it's a SID for 31. I don't understand the joke, pls explain.

For RWY 31 are IFR/VFR procedures published, there are no restrictions there, that's what I'm saying.

 

I'm of course not simply saying "that a pilot can do what he wants". Where did I say this?

(This would be as stupid as saying that a pilot should be directed to an alternate airport when RWY 13 has northerly wind while RWY 31 is obviously safe)

 

Before further commenting emotionally on the responsibilty of a PIC pls study the Annex 2 (ICAO) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, section 2.3.1.

I'm just referring to these written rules and not any assumption out from the stomach.

 

And, finally, after 30 years flying with q CPL, I have never, never heard that a plane will be directed to an alternate when one RWY direction is not (wind) safe while the opposite direction is.

(Exceptions apply for drunken ATC's only)

 

Short extract from the Batumi flight procedures. It seems that IFR arrivals are RWY 13 only, departures 31.

As for VFR both directions are possible but with limitations.

On top of that there is pretty much no infractructure (lights, ILS) on RWY 31.

 

UGSB AD 2.22 Flight procedures

1 Runway use

Take-off from RWY13 and landing on RWY31 is only permitted in day time exclusively in accordance with the Visual Flight

Rules (VFR) for aeroplanes with MTOW not exceeding 5700 kilograms and for all types of helicopters.

 

2 Procedures for IFR flights within Batumi TMA

...

Arrival routes STARs are established for RWY 13 and departure routes SIDs for RWY 31.

Clearance for visual approach on RWY 13 will be issued only after the pilot has reported the aerodrome insight.

...

[wernst]

As bbrz said, your first document is a SID (Standard Instrument Departure) chart from runway 31, not a landing procedure.

 

In fact, if you take a look at the full document, you can find departure charts for runway 31 only, and arrival charts (STAR and IAC) for runway 13 only.

 

Yes, the AIP SID procedure is of course for departure, the DCS map shows both directions equally.

 

I'm just questioning that a plane which is approaching Batumi with northerly wind will be directed to an alternate and not cleared for 31. Reality?

[wernst]

 

3. You wrote that if ATC refuses you to clear you for 13: Please learn that only the PIC has the final landing decision.

 

Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation

 

2.3.1 Responsibility of pilot-in-command

The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, whether manipulating

the controls or not, be responsible for the operation of

the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air, except that

the pilot-in-command may depart from these rules in circumstances

that render such departure absolutely necessary in the

interests of safety

 

2.4 Authority of pilot-in-command of an aircraft

The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority

as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.

[firmek]

Yes, the AIP SID procedure is of course for departure, the DCS map shows both directions equally.

 

I'm just questioning that a plane which is approaching Batumi with northerly wind will be directed to an alternate and not cleared for 31. Reality?

I'm not really an expert but you seem to mix the insturment with visual charts.

If you read a complete document you'll find out that landing on 31 is allowed only with visual rules, during a day, clean weather conditions and only for a relativelly small planes.

 

If it's a night or adverse conditions, even for instance a cloud base at 3000 feet, noone would be cleared to land on 31. Thus we can safely assume that if the wind component does not allow landing on 13 the plane would be diverted to another airport.

 

Look also on the minimum safe altitudes - it's 15.7 k and 9,5 k feets when approaching from any other direction than the sea. Landing on 31 really does not make too much sense in any other then perfect day visual conditions.

[Yurgon]

Yes, the AIP SID procedure is of course for departure, the DCS map shows both directions equally.

 

Do we agree that the quoted AIP document is in fact irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

 

Regarding the document from the DCS docs folder, mine says:

 

VISUAL APPROACH AND DEPARTURE PROCEDURES - JET

DCS A-10C Warthog Flight Simulation

Consistent with Version 1.2.4

http://www.10thGunfighters.de

http://www.ariescon.com

rev 3.6.0

03.05.2013 © dp

(And similar for the FC3 version)

 

It kind of looks like this document does not apply to the real world, and it also looks like this was not actually created by Eagle Dynamics, but was indeed created by community members and incorporated into the DCS docs folder because it's a great and commendable community effort. I just wouldn't go so far as to name this document as authoritative.

 

Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation

 

2.3.1 Responsibility of pilot-in-command

[...]

 

2.4 Authority of pilot-in-command of an aircraft

[...]

 

This seems so simple and straightforward.

 

It looks to me as if you imply that pilots can always override ATC and Tower, simply because they are PIC. Is that what you're saying?

 

Otherwise, what does it have to do with anything at all? Of course pilots are in charge of flying their aircraft, but if they're not cleared to land on any particular runway, then that's that and they have to comply. Now if their aircraft is on fire and their comms are broken and they manage to save all souls on board by landing ASAP on the wrong runway, I'm sure they'll be getting a medal and lots of media attention. In any other case, what does the definition of PIC matter to a discussion about the active runway?

[wernst]

 

It looks to me as if you imply that pilots can always override ATC and Tower, simply because they are PIC. Is that what you're saying?

 

It looks to me as if you imply that I do not understand what the responsibility of a PIC is.

Of course the PIC will have to follow ATC guidance and standard flying rules - in regular operation.

 

The topic here is: Trees (obstacles) are way too close to the threshold 31.

Everybody here is saying: "It doesn't matter, because landing will be cleared from 13 - ONLY".

 

What if a plane comes with northerly wind to Batumi and ATC says: "We are closed, 13 is not safe and 31 is not allowed."

If the PIC has good reasons (short of fuel, ambulence) he has the right to disregard ATC and land at 31.

But even under these exceptional conditions it should always be possible to land on 31 safely, without obstacles close to the threshold.

 

ok, a short question to all wise guys here. IFR approaches on 13 only. copied, fine.

But what if a plane under instruments misses the correct touch down point and comes down with long landing in danger to overshoot?

Yes, go around. I bet the PIC will pray that he is able to climb as much as possible to avoid the trees which are close to the treshold 31.

 

The topic here is obstacle clearance at an airport. For any contribution to this topic the use of common sense is allowed.

For in game mode flying around trees can be fun, but in sim mode, which should reflect reality as close as possible, it's no fun.

[wernst]

 

Btw, since you are calling a few people here 'wise guys'; IMO your credibility that you have a (valid) CPL shrinks with each questionable and dubious argument you make.

 

I’m only questioning what DCS has implemented for 31 approach sector in comparison to what google map shows for real Batumi.

In real Batumi there is a row of trees about 200 m before the beginning of the runway. That's ok.

But in DCS Batumi trees are scattered about 50 - 100m before the beginning of RWY 31. This is a dubious argument?

 

Glide slopes considerations are theoretical values. But real flying often doesn’t work as theoretically calculated, therefor safety factors are added.

As it is with real Batumi, where trees are not positioned where they just not touching the landing gear but more away, about double distance.

 

My advice: To hear other than my dubious arguments talk to a real pilot and ask him for his opinion about a scenery with trees close to a runway of an international airport.

Credibility comes from experiences - experiences in flying the real thing. In simulations everything is possible while sitting in a warm chair.

 

And, finally, comments, which insinuates that my statements about PIC responsibilities are meant like "a PIC can do what he wants" is more than "questionable and dubious".

[wernst]

Maybe you have a different scenery than I have. Even with the trees at 100% there's just a single tree in the approach sector, exactly 580m away from the threshold.

 

see the image with the initial thread here from malibu43 on 02-02-2018, 07:08 AM.

Trees are popping up, the more the closer you come to the RWY.

 

Here is what malibu43 commented to your objection:

 

"Ya, but IRL they would clear trees if they were that close to being in the glide path.

If something goes wrong on final or your nursing a damaged plane in, that tree is in a bad spot.

You may be right about it not being in glide path, but it's presence there was enough for me to stop and think "that's odd...". That's not good for immersion."

 

I've said the same, but my arguments are considered to be "questionable".

 

BTW, even more trees close to the RWY can be found in Normandy.

[Yurgon]

What if a plane comes with northerly wind to Batumi and ATC says: "We are closed, 13 is not safe and 31 is not allowed."

 

According to RL documents already posted, IFR flights simply wouldn't come in for landing from that direction. AFAIK there aren't any procedures for that. Aircraft don't just make up where they fly and how they approach. And with a CPL, I'd have thought you'd be the one telling us a thing or two about procedures, not the other way around.

 

Coming back to your question, to the best of my knowledge commercial flights are required to have at least one alternate field for landing, so in this case that's exactly what they should do: reroute to alternate.

 

In regards to VFR, I think it has been thoroughly established that this would not be the only airport in the world where pilots have to avoid obstacles.

 

If the PIC has good reasons (short of fuel, ambulence) he has the right to disregard ATC and land at 31.

 

Wait, what?! Are you honestly saying that, if a pilot deems a landing important enough, he is to disregard ATC and land without clearance at a controlled airport?

 

Would you please be so kind as to hand your license back to the LBA before you kill a bunch of people? I can't believe I'm reading something as reckless as this from someone who says he's a pilot.

 

The topic here is obstacle clearance at an airport. For any contribution to this topic the use of common sense is allowed.

 

Why use common sense when, according to documents already posted, it's perfectly regulated? There is no IFR traffic for runway 31 at Batumi, and VFR traffic shouldn't have any problems with obstacle avoidance.

[Ironhand]

...

What if a plane comes with northerly wind to Batumi and ATC says: "We are closed, 13 is not safe and 31 is not allowed."

If the PIC has good reasons (short of fuel, ambulence) he has the right to disregard ATC and land at 31.

But even under these exceptional conditions it should always be possible to land on 31 safely, without obstacles close to the threshold....

And it is possible in the sim. The closest tree in the sim is 580 meters away (in the OP's initial image). In the real-world, the closest trees are 200 meters away.

 

...

But what if a plane under instruments misses the correct touch down point and comes down with long landing in danger to overshoot?

Yes, go around...

And, if he crashes, the accident report will read "pilot error".

 

...

For in game mode flying around trees can be fun, but in sim mode, which should reflect reality as close as possible, it's no fun.

All in all, it seems fairly close to reality already. Removing those trees would make it less so. Too low an approach from the the east will result in a crash just as it would in the real-world. And, as in the real world, the cause would be pilot error.

[=Pedro=]

51 replies on one tree :D

[firmek]

Wait, what?! Are you honestly saying that, if a pilot deems a landing important enough, he is to disregard ATC and land without clearance at a controlled airport?

 

Just to "relax" a bit:

 

[Ironhand]

... IRL obstacles can be much closer to a runway.

 

FWIW, jhere's what that end of the runway actually looks like:

 

[Nosferatuwhisky 1-1]

Just look at the tire marks on that sat image, they clearly dont use the landward side of the runway much at all.

[Nosferatuwhisky 1-1]

Wait, what?! Are you honestly saying that, if a pilot deems a landing important enough, he is to disregard ATC and land without clearance at a controlled airport?

 

Would you please be so kind as to hand your license back to the LBA before you kill a bunch of people? I can't believe I'm reading something as reckless as this from someone who says he's a pilot.

 

 

Actually that is completely legit, there are procedures for such a landing, like use of lights and how one pilots around the area. In an emergency.

 

Like say, loss of radio communication. You are the PILOT IN CHARGE, things are up to your judgment.

[VZ_342]

51 replies on one tree :D

 

Yes, but it's a speciaaallll tree!

 

This thread kinda reminds me of an old joke:

 

 

 

 

How do you know when a pilot has entered the room?

 

 

 

 

 

 

He'll tell you.

 

 

:blink:

[Nosferatuwhisky 1-1]

And again, loss of communication is no reason to land on a closed runway. ATC will show you that with the light gun ;)

 

An emergency is a totally different story. If you loose your only engine upon entering the downwind for 31 you will most likely have no other choice than trying to land on 13....

 

well yeah, you'd also be able to see a reason why the runway is closed, like its torn up for paving or there is a plane on it haha,