n5lp
fugio ergo sum
It is very much in the FAA manuals that there should not be a leading zero. I worked at a facility that had runways 2/20. Yep, confusing. Sometimes people would report landing on zero two zero and you had no idea what they meant.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Radio etiquette at uncontrolled fields?
- Thread starter N941WR
- Start date
It is very much in the FAA manuals that there should not be a leading zero. I worked at a facility that had runways 2/20. Yep, confusing. Sometimes people would report landing on zero two zero and you had no idea what they meant.
logansc
Well Known Member
I don't think anyone has mentioned Advisory Circular 90-42F (AC 90-42F) which contains procedures specific to this issue. It is true that AC's are not mandatory but they do contain "distilled" advice as to appropriate practices judged reasonable and proper by the FAA. There are thousands of pages of FAR's and the AIM (which is a synopsis of the FAR's focused on General Aviation) is several hundred pages long itself. AC's are (usually) short "white papers" further explaining the FAA's viewpoint and intent on (usually short, specific topics).
AC 90-42F is titled: "Traffic Advisory Practices At Airports Without Operating Control Towers".
Section 1 says: "This advisory circular (AC) contains good operating practices and procedures for use when approaching or departing airports without an operating control tower and airports that have control towers operating part time. This AC has been updated to include changes in radio frequencies and phraseology."
It is specific and easy to read and understand. Unlike the FAR's or the AIM, it is only 17 pages long and can be found as a PDF HERE.
AC 90-42F is titled: "Traffic Advisory Practices At Airports Without Operating Control Towers".
Section 1 says: "This advisory circular (AC) contains good operating practices and procedures for use when approaching or departing airports without an operating control tower and airports that have control towers operating part time. This AC has been updated to include changes in radio frequencies and phraseology."
It is specific and easy to read and understand. Unlike the FAR's or the AIM, it is only 17 pages long and can be found as a PDF HERE.
Last edited by a moderator:
Flying Scotsman
Well Known Member
I don't quite get the aversion to a "request advisories" sort of transmission from an inbound aircraft. I've often done something like "Anytown airport, Arrow 458 is 10 southeast inbound at 4500, request advisories, Anytown" and gotten quite courteous responses, such as "Arrow inbound for Anytown, winds are xx at yy, we're using runway Z". A quick thanks, and I can enter the pattern with everyone else (on a 45) without having to overfly the airport, look for the windsock or T, fly outbound, announce what I'm doing while I'm doing that, then turn inbound, and finally enter the pattern along with everyone else. It saves time, confusion, possible conflicts and I've never a) gotten any kind of haughty response, or b) failed to help a fellow pilot by giving *them* the info if *I* am the one in the pattern.
The goal is communication and safety...is it not?
(Granted, a *too-short* sort of request, such as "Anytown airport, Arrow 458 request advisories" isn't telling those in the pattern anything useful...but where's the harm in helping someone coming in to the area to smoothly enter the flow of traffic?)
Just my thoughts...
The goal is communication and safety...is it not?
(Granted, a *too-short* sort of request, such as "Anytown airport, Arrow 458 request advisories" isn't telling those in the pattern anything useful...but where's the harm in helping someone coming in to the area to smoothly enter the flow of traffic?)
Just my thoughts...
RV Wannabe
Well Known Member
I believe "request advisories" and "any trafic in the area please asvise" are two different things.
One is asking wind conditions, and runway in use. This info would be helpful if there is no AWOS. I think that if there are no aircraft in the area it would prompt the FBO monitoring unicom to state wind conditions and notify if there is a "prefered" runway. Of course if one is observant a windsock is not required to figure out the winds. Trees, lakes, rivers, blowing sand/smoke are all fantastic indications of wind before you ever get into the pattern. (This does not help with the "preferred no wind runway though) Granted this is up to interpretation, one could believe they are asking for everyone to "advise" their location.
The other is stating that they want everyone to chime in with their location/intentions and is specifically discuraged in the AIM.
Mark
One is asking wind conditions, and runway in use. This info would be helpful if there is no AWOS. I think that if there are no aircraft in the area it would prompt the FBO monitoring unicom to state wind conditions and notify if there is a "prefered" runway. Of course if one is observant a windsock is not required to figure out the winds. Trees, lakes, rivers, blowing sand/smoke are all fantastic indications of wind before you ever get into the pattern. (This does not help with the "preferred no wind runway though) Granted this is up to interpretation, one could believe they are asking for everyone to "advise" their location.
The other is stating that they want everyone to chime in with their location/intentions and is specifically discuraged in the AIM.
Mark
Last edited:
"Request Advisories" has almost gone by the wayside because of the closure of local FSS's and the automation of most weather advisories, but it used to be exactly as Mark stated - a call to the ground operator for airport advisories. In fact, if yo asked an FAA if there was any traffic, they would state that they don't control traffic, and they wouldn't tel you anything because it would presume some liability on their part - and truthfully, they often missed stuff, and there were planes without radios.
There is nothing wrong with calling the Unicom at a field and asked them for an advisory on winds, but now-adays, if they have it, it is probably on the AWOS.
Paul
There is nothing wrong with calling the Unicom at a field and asked them for an advisory on winds, but now-adays, if they have it, it is probably on the AWOS.
Paul
Indeed. This is the first aviation book I read in elementary school
http://www.amazon.com/Runway-Zero-Eight-Arthur-Hailey/dp/0440175461
Bubblehead
Well Known Member
Practice IFR approaches
I just reread the advisory and think it misses an important point. It says to announce on CTAF inbound from fix (name) on (approach). How would a VFR pilot know where the fix is or what the approach is?
To me that radio call is worthless because unless I have the approach plate in front of me and time to look at it I will not know where the traffic is. I believe that a/c on practice IFR approaches must still give normal VFR calls giving position and intentions.
If the approach is a ILS or LOC I can tell something about the position of the traffic by the approach name, but what about a "GPS-A" approach? I don't know what direction nor how far away they are.
I just reread the advisory and think it misses an important point. It says to announce on CTAF inbound from fix (name) on (approach). How would a VFR pilot know where the fix is or what the approach is?
To me that radio call is worthless because unless I have the approach plate in front of me and time to look at it I will not know where the traffic is. I believe that a/c on practice IFR approaches must still give normal VFR calls giving position and intentions.
If the approach is a ILS or LOC I can tell something about the position of the traffic by the approach name, but what about a "GPS-A" approach? I don't know what direction nor how far away they are.
Global reach, global learning
Thanks for pointing that out, Jim. Even as a US pilot, that's helpful to me. I've really been motivated by all the international trip reports: Canada, Bahamas, Mexico (and Alaska!). I'm looking forward to pushing our borders once my project's flying.
Mel's right. We get a little too US-centric here. Understandable, I guess, but still regrettable.
--Stephen
Thanks for pointing that out, Jim. Even as a US pilot, that's helpful to me. I've really been motivated by all the international trip reports: Canada, Bahamas, Mexico (and Alaska!). I'm looking forward to pushing our borders once my project's flying.
Mel's right. We get a little too US-centric here. Understandable, I guess, but still regrettable.
--Stephen
my pet peeve...unnecessary words.
The most common feedback I give on flight reviews is to eliminate unnecessary words from the radio call.
Example: Wells traffic, RV___ is 10 miles northwest at two thousand five hundred, we will be entering the pattern for runway 15, Wells traffic.
I recommend: Wells traffic, RV___, 10 northwest, two thousand five hundred, inbound runway 15, Wells.
Example 2: Wells traffic, RV___ turning left base for runway 15, touch and go, Wells traffic.
I recommend: Wells traffic, RV___, left base, 15, touch and go, Wells.
I particularly dislike the use of the word "FOR" preceeding a runway number. "final, 415, full stop, Wells."
The most common feedback I give on flight reviews is to eliminate unnecessary words from the radio call.
Example: Wells traffic, RV___ is 10 miles northwest at two thousand five hundred, we will be entering the pattern for runway 15, Wells traffic.
I recommend: Wells traffic, RV___, 10 northwest, two thousand five hundred, inbound runway 15, Wells.
Example 2: Wells traffic, RV___ turning left base for runway 15, touch and go, Wells traffic.
I recommend: Wells traffic, RV___, left base, 15, touch and go, Wells.
I particularly dislike the use of the word "FOR" preceeding a runway number. "final, 415, full stop, Wells."
n981ms
Well Known Member
No preceding zero
My home base has Runway 2 and 20. I think this is a special case worthy of some other consideration. These are not just intersecting runways. They are the same strip of pavement which adds to the confusion and risk for collision. I heard two aircraft setting up for a near miss one day. Back forth transmissions at least three times as they moved closer to one another. One taking off and one inbound for landing on opposite headings. Neither used 02 in their phraseology but I believe it would have cleared the confusion immediately if they had. I was about to say something when they figured it out. Also, If I transmit "runway 2(insert static or get stepped on)" what did I say? No one knows for sure. If I said "runway 0(static)" you know something is missing. It may not be what the FAA said but you will know where I am when I say 02. And if I say 03 at your airport it may be out of habit, sorry. FWIW
My home base has Runway 2 and 20. I think this is a special case worthy of some other consideration. These are not just intersecting runways. They are the same strip of pavement which adds to the confusion and risk for collision. I heard two aircraft setting up for a near miss one day. Back forth transmissions at least three times as they moved closer to one another. One taking off and one inbound for landing on opposite headings. Neither used 02 in their phraseology but I believe it would have cleared the confusion immediately if they had. I was about to say something when they figured it out. Also, If I transmit "runway 2(insert static or get stepped on)" what did I say? No one knows for sure. If I said "runway 0(static)" you know something is missing. It may not be what the FAA said but you will know where I am when I say 02. And if I say 03 at your airport it may be out of habit, sorry. FWIW
As a commuter pilot on the east coast, I have to say that no matter what the rules are, you have got to know where everybody is.
We fly our Dash 8 into non towered fields all the time. And on a nice, sunny, weekend afternoon, it can be very difficult.
I would usually make position reports from about 40 miles out. "Greenville traffic, Piedmont 4202, Dash 8, 40 miles to the southwest, will be overhead in 6 minutes, inbound for landing runway XX".
Once we got closer, I would just use "Dash 8". Not many people will know that Piedmont only flies Dash 8's.
It can be very difficult to get ourselves in the pattern on busy days. When there are 3 or 4 152's in a tight pattern, timing and communication are very important. I have often flown overhead at 200 KTS to position us safely, then drop the speed back to 130 kts.
We usually do a lot of communicating to the traffic. If someone makes a position report, I will respond "Cessna that is on a downwind, this is the Dash 8 about to be overhead from the SW, we see you and will fall in behind you". This way I know where he is, and he isn't afraid a turbo prop is going to run him over.
Is this proper? Probably not. But having a true understanding of where people are, and what they are doing is very important. Otherwise you are guessing where he is and hoping you can actually see him. Just because you have TCAS, and a clean window, doesn't mean you are going to see another plane.
As a Captain, I would often fly with new FO's. The would come into these airports making standard calls. Sometimes, that just doesn't work. Pilots make mistakes. Sometimes someone was new, or busy, or just forgot to include there location, or distance, or altitude. I would make sure that we asked that pilot for more information. Then we could usually identify them on the TCAS, which would help.
Also, when in a fast plane following a slow plane, we would sometimes ask their intentions if they didn't offer the information. Full stop? Touch and go? That helps us judge how much room to give them.
Flying the airlines have taught me a lot. The rules are 2nd to safety. I have actually turned off the radios while in the simulator, during a checkride, when dealing for a serious problem during high workloads. Obviously not for long, but we needed to fly the plane, not talk to ATC. We were actually praised for doing just that.
I'm not trying to say that I don't follow the rules, or that I talk like a trucker on the radio. Every situation is different, and as a pilot, we need to know when to step outside of the box and get the job done.
Fly the plane, be standard, but don't be afraid to throw the rules out the window. And also know that if you make fun of someone on the radio, you usually sound like more of an *** than the guy who made the mistake.
Just my opinion.
Steve
We fly our Dash 8 into non towered fields all the time. And on a nice, sunny, weekend afternoon, it can be very difficult.
I would usually make position reports from about 40 miles out. "Greenville traffic, Piedmont 4202, Dash 8, 40 miles to the southwest, will be overhead in 6 minutes, inbound for landing runway XX".
Once we got closer, I would just use "Dash 8". Not many people will know that Piedmont only flies Dash 8's.
It can be very difficult to get ourselves in the pattern on busy days. When there are 3 or 4 152's in a tight pattern, timing and communication are very important. I have often flown overhead at 200 KTS to position us safely, then drop the speed back to 130 kts.
We usually do a lot of communicating to the traffic. If someone makes a position report, I will respond "Cessna that is on a downwind, this is the Dash 8 about to be overhead from the SW, we see you and will fall in behind you". This way I know where he is, and he isn't afraid a turbo prop is going to run him over.
Is this proper? Probably not. But having a true understanding of where people are, and what they are doing is very important. Otherwise you are guessing where he is and hoping you can actually see him. Just because you have TCAS, and a clean window, doesn't mean you are going to see another plane.
As a Captain, I would often fly with new FO's. The would come into these airports making standard calls. Sometimes, that just doesn't work. Pilots make mistakes. Sometimes someone was new, or busy, or just forgot to include there location, or distance, or altitude. I would make sure that we asked that pilot for more information. Then we could usually identify them on the TCAS, which would help.
Also, when in a fast plane following a slow plane, we would sometimes ask their intentions if they didn't offer the information. Full stop? Touch and go? That helps us judge how much room to give them.
Flying the airlines have taught me a lot. The rules are 2nd to safety. I have actually turned off the radios while in the simulator, during a checkride, when dealing for a serious problem during high workloads. Obviously not for long, but we needed to fly the plane, not talk to ATC. We were actually praised for doing just that.
I'm not trying to say that I don't follow the rules, or that I talk like a trucker on the radio. Every situation is different, and as a pilot, we need to know when to step outside of the box and get the job done.
Fly the plane, be standard, but don't be afraid to throw the rules out the window. And also know that if you make fun of someone on the radio, you usually sound like more of an *** than the guy who made the mistake.
Just my opinion.
Steve
Last edited:
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
Wow your flight reviews must be a real joy.
longranger
Well Known Member
My Dad (27 years with the "old" Piedmont, DC-3's to 767's) had a similar attitude. He was never reckless by any means, but he did relate several stories from his career where strict adherence to the rules likely would have killed him and his passengers. Another example of pilot vs. aviator. The aviator has the judgement to know when it's appropriate and necessary.
jbDC9
Well Known Member
Why? What's wrong with imparting a little positive feedback and trying to improve someone's radio work? When I'm out puttering around listening to unicom I hear stuff that just makes me cringe... like the guys that are too wordy yet don't tell you anything. IFR students and instructors really bug me with this sometimes; "West Houston traffic, Cessna ### is JOSEY inbound GPS 15 approach". So then I gotta ask 'em, "yeah, that's nice, but where are you?" I don't have an approach plate on my lap. I actually had a CFI once get into a pissing contest over this and wanted to talk about it on the ground... no thanks, just give a simple position report and leave out all the fancy IFR mumbo jumbo, save it for ATC.
Another thing that really grinds my gears (cue Peter Griffin) is when guys try to announce the airport but either mumble it or say it so fast that you can't understand it and have no idea where they are. So that clutters up the airwaves while I have to ask "what airport was that again?".
And one last thing, if anyone from Great Britain or Europe is reading... what's the deal with guys saying "on finals for 15"? Why the extra "s" on final? For any given runway there is but one final approach and I never could understand why some say "on finals" as if it's plural. Any ideas?
jsherblon
Well Known Member
Sage advice. To paraphrase something I was told long ago, "The plane never read the book."
Haha, I like it.
I can't resist adding my own two cents for such a large audience. The non-standard use of call signs (red rv, learjet, etc) works well as long as there isn't another red rv or learjet in the pattern. I've been confused in the past by folks who used call signs that were too general and could have applied to multiple aircraft in the area. Judgement is the key of course.
Also, one of my CTAF policies is to never use terms like "emergency" or "engine out" on the frequency unless I really have one. Often I hear students and/or instructors who get a little bit too wrapped up in their training and say "simulated engine out" or "simulated emergency" to describe their short approach, when a term like "short approach" is much more descriptive and much less likely to be misrepresented by a radio with intermittent reception.
Finally, you never know who is (or will be) listening when you key the mic, so keep that in mind when you talk! Anyone with an experimental call sign is the voice of home-built aviation, make us proud.
Also, one of my CTAF policies is to never use terms like "emergency" or "engine out" on the frequency unless I really have one. Often I hear students and/or instructors who get a little bit too wrapped up in their training and say "simulated engine out" or "simulated emergency" to describe their short approach, when a term like "short approach" is much more descriptive and much less likely to be misrepresented by a radio with intermittent reception.
Finally, you never know who is (or will be) listening when you key the mic, so keep that in mind when you talk! Anyone with an experimental call sign is the voice of home-built aviation, make us proud.
Last edited:
I've never understood the "simulated engine out" call. All this means (from what I've observed) is that they are pulling power somewhere near the numbers on downwind and making a power-off approach, which (unfortunately) for many is only ever done on the rare occasion that they practice it. I do it every time I land, and I don't understand the relevance of the call. Spiraling down into the pattern from above pattern altitude is a different issue, and would not be covered by simply saying "simulated engine out".
AZtailwind
Well Known Member
Yes, I know...Uncontrolled fields....and garbled
Is to try to get a word in at Deer Valley....with 13 Chinese... in a Piper.... that I can hardly understand! ....
This is typically not this bad. But early this week was the worst I have heard it. Even the tower (outstanding controllers with radar) where having a hard time understanding a couple of students..... with TEN others to deal with ....
So when I hear Mr long winded in Sedona, landing down hill, then going-around with ....please advise.... at the end.
At least it is all decipferable and managable
KDVT #26 airport of the world- the largest congestion of students that don't speak english:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_airports_by_traffic_movements
But to really be irritated
Is to try to get a word in at Deer Valley....with 13 Chinese... in a Piper.... that I can hardly understand! ....
This is typically not this bad. But early this week was the worst I have heard it. Even the tower (outstanding controllers with radar) where having a hard time understanding a couple of students..... with TEN others to deal with ....
So when I hear Mr long winded in Sedona, landing down hill, then going-around with ....please advise.... at the end.
At least it is all decipferable and managable
KDVT #26 airport of the world- the largest congestion of students that don't speak english:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_airports_by_traffic_movements
First call to the next controller
After reading through this thread I have a question. My fist contact with ATC (Tower, SoCal, whatever) I use "Experimental" (my understanding of the AIM that is the correct procedure). With my next call (after they talk to me) I say "123AB is a RV6 ...". If I do not clarify they usually ask. Then I just use "123AB". My question is when they hand me off to the next guy/gal (flight following for example) do I just say "123AB" (what I usually do) or start with "Experimental" again?
Only had one time when dropping the "Experimental" seemed to be a problem. I was handed off and like I usually do I just used "123AB" with my first call to the next controller. He came back with "O so you are not an Experimental any more?". Hard to tell if he was mad, kidding or what because for the rest of the time I was with him he was real helpful. That was a couple years ago. However after that I often wonder what is correct.
After reading through this thread I have a question. My fist contact with ATC (Tower, SoCal, whatever) I use "Experimental" (my understanding of the AIM that is the correct procedure). With my next call (after they talk to me) I say "123AB is a RV6 ...". If I do not clarify they usually ask. Then I just use "123AB". My question is when they hand me off to the next guy/gal (flight following for example) do I just say "123AB" (what I usually do) or start with "Experimental" again?
Only had one time when dropping the "Experimental" seemed to be a problem. I was handed off and like I usually do I just used "123AB" with my first call to the next controller. He came back with "O so you are not an Experimental any more?". Hard to tell if he was mad, kidding or what because for the rest of the time I was with him he was real helpful. That was a couple years ago. However after that I often wonder what is correct.
"Ask a Controller" thread
I've found tkatc's "Ask a Controller" thread extremely helpful for these kinds of questions:
See: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=59270&page=25
--Stephen
I've found tkatc's "Ask a Controller" thread extremely helpful for these kinds of questions:
See: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=59270&page=25
--Stephen
The truth is, you only need to use "Experimental" when talking to a Tower - not Approach or Center - so there is only one hand off you need to worry about - the one to Tower.
delusional
Well Known Member
never have to throw out the rules
Maybe I'm being a little picayune or technical, and i mean no disrespect to anyone posting, but you _never_ have to throw out the rules in the name of safety for the simple reason that there is an escape clause in the regs, sorry can't quote the 91. section, which says something on the order of "if you need to deviate from the rules in order to be safe, and you are prepared to explain yourself to the administrator, you are _authorized_ to deviate from any rule."
Assuming I have that substantially right then it can be said unambiguously that, technically speaking, it is _never_ necessary to deviate from the rules in the name of safety.
Yes, I know more than a few pilots have met trouble with the administrator when they "thought" they were doing the right thing, though many of those neglected to either invoke the above rule or failed to take advantage of some safer course of action. Nonetheless, there is an out in the regs.
Maybe I'm being a little picayune or technical, and i mean no disrespect to anyone posting, but you _never_ have to throw out the rules in the name of safety for the simple reason that there is an escape clause in the regs, sorry can't quote the 91. section, which says something on the order of "if you need to deviate from the rules in order to be safe, and you are prepared to explain yourself to the administrator, you are _authorized_ to deviate from any rule."
Assuming I have that substantially right then it can be said unambiguously that, technically speaking, it is _never_ necessary to deviate from the rules in the name of safety.
Yes, I know more than a few pilots have met trouble with the administrator when they "thought" they were doing the right thing, though many of those neglected to either invoke the above rule or failed to take advantage of some safer course of action. Nonetheless, there is an out in the regs.
And that out is really in an emergency, you do whatever you need to be as safe to you, your plane and pax, and people and property on the ground.
So, in a way, you are correct, but it's easy to get caught up in the rules. For example, in the airline world, not doing checklists is a big deal. Sometimes emergency checklists are really long. Let's say you are on an approach, weather at minimums, and an engine catches fire. The book would say go around and get all your stuff done. Forget that. Run through the shutdown procedure and land! That fire can actually melt the wing spar. What happens if it doesn't go out and we get to minimums? We are going below minimums.
There's nothing in the regs about that.
Steve
rvmills
Well Known Member
Pretty interesting and wide ranging thread. I chimed in a while back on the basics in the OP, and the thread has really covered a lot of ground.
On the throwing out of the rulebook theme, I think the spirit was to say what you need to say to get the message across, even if it is not in AIM or the Pilot to Controller Glossary.
FWIW, I try to use standard phraseology, without sounding robotic, but I'm not too OCD on it, and there are times when it's just worked out better to say, "OK, I'll follow you", and the reply is "thanks". Plain language to clarify something works...as long as it doesn't become a diatribe. Common sense just applies, and I wouldn't really call it throwing out the rulebook to get a message across well.
On the use of Pilot's Emergency Authority...different theme really. Personally, I don't see it as an out...I'm just going to do (and say) what I need to do to get on the ground safely. I'll consider a reg if confronted with a choice...but I'll choose the safest course of action, and not worry about the phone call till after I'm on the ground. I used it once (sort of) as a CFI in college, following an engine failure in a C-152. Landed at a private glider field, 'cause the nearby public airport was juuuussst a bit too far away. I thought about it for a moment, then thought, "no way...land". Didn't say a word on the radio in this case...just flew the plane...and no one complained. In an emergency, I doubt you'd be questioned on your communications (unless they were flagrant, or demonstrated a lack of awareness or basic piloting skills)...especially in a compound emergency such as Steve alludes to above.
Bottom line is I agree with you Steve...you'd land if at all able. However, I don't think the book would necessarily say go around and run the full procedure if you're on fire (granted, we likely have different books). Compound emergencies, which is what that quickly becomes, allows...actually requires, the use of judgement and making hard calls (as I know you know).
Fly the airplane, do the boldface/boxed items, fight the fire, re-configure for a single-engine landing, and get it on the ground. It would be a busy approach in weather to mins! And to keep it OT, if you were on final and got any radio calls out besides declaring an emergency and saying "XXXX, 10 mile final, RWY 8, on fire, get the heck outta the way!" it would be above and beyond. (Well, if it was to a towered airport, I'd add, "roll the fire trucks")
Just 2 more cents tossed in. Good discussion!
Cheers,
Bob
On the throwing out of the rulebook theme, I think the spirit was to say what you need to say to get the message across, even if it is not in AIM or the Pilot to Controller Glossary.
FWIW, I try to use standard phraseology, without sounding robotic, but I'm not too OCD on it
, and there are times when it's just worked out better to say, "OK, I'll follow you", and the reply is "thanks". Plain language to clarify something works...as long as it doesn't become a diatribe. Common sense just applies, and I wouldn't really call it throwing out the rulebook to get a message across well.On the use of Pilot's Emergency Authority...different theme really. Personally, I don't see it as an out...I'm just going to do (and say) what I need to do to get on the ground safely. I'll consider a reg if confronted with a choice...but I'll choose the safest course of action, and not worry about the phone call till after I'm on the ground. I used it once (sort of) as a CFI in college, following an engine failure in a C-152. Landed at a private glider field, 'cause the nearby public airport was juuuussst a bit too far away. I thought about it for a moment, then thought, "no way...land". Didn't say a word on the radio in this case...just flew the plane...and no one complained. In an emergency, I doubt you'd be questioned on your communications (unless they were flagrant, or demonstrated a lack of awareness or basic piloting skills)...especially in a compound emergency such as Steve alludes to above.
Bottom line is I agree with you Steve...you'd land if at all able. However, I don't think the book would necessarily say go around and run the full procedure if you're on fire (granted, we likely have different books). Compound emergencies, which is what that quickly becomes, allows...actually requires, the use of judgement and making hard calls (as I know you know).
Fly the airplane, do the boldface/boxed items, fight the fire, re-configure for a single-engine landing, and get it on the ground. It would be a busy approach in weather to mins! And to keep it OT, if you were on final and got any radio calls out besides declaring an emergency and saying "XXXX, 10 mile final, RWY 8, on fire, get the heck outta the way!" it would be above and beyond. (Well, if it was to a towered airport, I'd add, "roll the fire trucks")
Just 2 more cents tossed in. Good discussion!
Cheers,
Bob
Last edited:
emergencys
Regarding steve91t's last post on fire on final. A textbook example of this is the Fedex accident at Stewart Airport, NY 5 Sep 1996. 350 knots until five mile final IIRC. This may have saved them as the airplane burned up on the taxiway. The NTSB, in their infinite wisdom, was critical of missed checklist items or maybe an entire checklist missed. Who cares, the got the job done.
Regarding steve91t's last post on fire on final. A textbook example of this is the Fedex accident at Stewart Airport, NY 5 Sep 1996. 350 knots until five mile final IIRC. This may have saved them as the airplane burned up on the taxiway. The NTSB, in their infinite wisdom, was critical of missed checklist items or maybe an entire checklist missed. Who cares, the got the job done.
But when that person goes missing and nobody knows where he was last, all it might take is one person at that uncontrolled airport remembering that someone called in from 4000'.
In the vicinity of a towered airport, chances are that same person would be on flight following and already talking to someone, so a position report to the airport would be unnecessary.
DakotaHawk
Well Known Member
If a pilot is making a position report on tower freq above a towered airport's airspace, or making a position report in the clear above a non-towered airport in the hopes that someone "remembers that someone called in from 4000'", that pilot is expecting a service to be provided that is better provided by flight following.
They would be better served by getting flight following, They would then be protected by a controller who has postive identification and location, rather than hoping that someone remembers their improper radio check-in.
n5lp
fugio ergo sum
This service is a standard function of Flight Service Stations, although it is rarely used. It can be very handy when flight following is not possible, like when you can't fly high enough for radar coverage.
After making contact with the FSS just say something like N441LP over Carlsbad VOR, 6,500, VFR. The Flight Service Specialist should simply say roger, Carlsbad altimeter 29.92. The thing is, they write it down and if there is a search later there is a hard record that will be searched for.
I have found that modern Flight Service Specialists may be confused by this call, since they get it so seldom; they shouldn't be though.
turbo
Well Known Member
i would say ................
that communication by pilots is done poorly most of the time. to much extra stuff put in that is not needed.the best aviators say the least!!!!!!! less is better. next, listen and look. thats it. and im glad mel is not in my area because he will probably do a better job than me.
10 SOUTH INBOUND. period.
glad to say i have been flying the r-44 in ct this past week and in that case we dont talk much because we avoid airports, controlled airspace or situations were we need to climb to 1,000'. anyways a helicopter is a helicopter.
that communication by pilots is done poorly most of the time. to much extra stuff put in that is not needed.the best aviators say the least!!!!!!! less is better. next, listen and look. thats it. and im glad mel is not in my area because he will probably do a better job than me.
10 SOUTH INBOUND. period.
glad to say i have been flying the r-44 in ct this past week and in that case we dont talk much because we avoid airports, controlled airspace or situations were we need to climb to 1,000'. anyways a helicopter is a helicopter.
Last edited:
Chris Hill
Well Known Member
I think altitude would be relevent...and at a controlled field, intentions is polite to the controller.
My suggestion would be "10 south 3,500 inbound (touch and go/full stop)" as a minimum. Or you can just wait for the response "Hey, I'm 10 south inbound too"
fl-mike
Well Known Member
And for gosh sake, if everything gets quiet, take a look at your tx indicator or pop over to AWOS or something for a sanity check. We had some student with a stuck mic yesterday for well over a half hour while we all got to enjoy his humming and singing, and it wasn't good...or English. It was still going on when I landed and pushed back into the hangar.
sprucemoose
Well Known Member
+1. Your altitude is very relevant to other traffic. I agree with your "brevity is the soul of wit approach."
-1. T&G/ full stop is not relevant or useful when you are 10 out. It is relevant when turning final.
Not Much Flight Following in Western Montana
Around here there really isn't much flight following available just due to terrain. You have to be well into oxygen flight levels to be seen.
Hans
Around here there really isn't much flight following available just due to terrain. You have to be well into oxygen flight levels to be seen.
Hans
I agree. But only where flight following is available. Where it isn't, I wouldnt rely on the report for safety, but every little bit helps.
Another instance where I regularly call in when 4000' over the uncontrolled field is at a local field where gliding activity is popular. In that case its more of a case of advising other aircraft at altitude than aircraft in the circuit, however.
Sid Lambert
Well Known Member
I'm with you 100%! It irks me to hear this. And those who do it do it over and over until someone answers get me more. So much so that I usually say something to them over the radio.
MauiLvrs
Well Known Member
OMG we learned to fly in the dark ages
For ATC we use both Experimental and RV on initial call and then respond with their choice which is either usually either Experimental or RV....
Wait till you get her in the air
One of the reasons we almost always enter overhead now in the RV is that it allows us to better adjust to the traffic pattern.
In regards to the other forum that was referenced....
The other day a C152 pulls in front of a C172 on short final on an instrument approach...
A few day later two C272 are doing simulated engine outs circling approaches in opposite directions and almost hit each other....
