What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations, AC 90-66B

Carl, give us the synopsis. Where are the revisions, deletions and additions? And which ones will affect us? Tell us what you think of the updates.
 
Overheads are now an alternative, accepted approach..Listed under, Other approaches..
 
I like this part.

Note: Pilots are reminded that the use of the phrase, “ANY TRAFFIC IN THE
AREA, PLEASE ADVISE
,” is not a recognized self-announce position and/or
intention phrase and should not be used under any condition
. Any traffic that
is present at the time of your self-announcement that is capable of radio
communications should reply without being prompted to do so.
 
I like this part, too...

Note: Pilots are reminded that the use of the phrase, ?ANY TRAFFIC IN THE
AREA, PLEASE ADVISE? is not a recognized self-announce position and/or
intention phrase and should not be used under any condition. Any traffic that
is present at the time of your self-announcement that is capable of radio
communications should reply without being prompted to do so.
 
I like this part in addition to the statement in the prior posts:

10.3.1 Self-announce transmissions may include aircraft type to aid in identification and detection, but should not use paint schemes or color descriptions to replace the use of the aircraft call sign. For example, “MIDWEST TRAFFIC, TWIN COMMANDER FIVE ONE ROMEO FOXTROT TEN MILES NORTHEAST” or “MIDWEST TRAFFIC, FIVE ONE ROMEO FOXTROT TWIN COMMANDER TEN MILES NORTHEAST,” not “MIDWEST TRAFFIC, BLUE AND WHITE TWIN COMMANDER TEN MILES NORTHEAST.”

Using aircraft colors instead of call signs is something that I increasingly hear in some northeastern states including PA, MD, NJ and NY.
 
I like this part in addition to the statement in the prior posts:

10.3.1 Self-announce transmissions may include aircraft type to aid in identification and detection, but should not use paint schemes or color descriptions to replace the use of the aircraft call sign. For example, ?MIDWEST TRAFFIC, TWIN COMMANDER FIVE ONE ROMEO FOXTROT TEN MILES NORTHEAST? or ?MIDWEST TRAFFIC, FIVE ONE ROMEO FOXTROT TWIN COMMANDER TEN MILES NORTHEAST,? not ?MIDWEST TRAFFIC, BLUE AND WHITE TWIN COMMANDER TEN MILES NORTHEAST.?

Using aircraft colors instead of call signs is something that I increasingly hear in some northeastern states including PA, MD, NJ and NY.

I hear this regularly in the SE as well. ?Red experimental 5 miles east...?
 
I hear this regularly in the SE as well. ?Red experimental 5 miles east...?
This one actually combines two issues in one. Too bad this AC missed the boat on eliminating the word "experimental" from non-tower radio use completely.

I will respectfully disagree with the FAA on this one though. As long as the call sign is used on initial call up, the FCC regs are complied with. Furthermore, "Red RV" is a much more useful (and succinct) call sign than "Experimental one two three four Alpha."
 
This one actually combines two issues in one. Too bad this AC missed the boat on eliminating the word "experimental" from non-tower radio use completely.
I'd go further and say that the use of "experimental" in radio calls is useless and deprecated at this point. There's enough variety in homebuilts today that saying actual type is going to be a lot more informative to all involved, and less of a mouthful too.

One could argue that, at least with popular homebuilt types, saying type instead of the word "experimental" still informs ATC of the "experimental nature" of the aircraft.

I will respectfully disagree with the FAA on this one though. As long as the call sign is used on initial call up, the FCC regs are complied with. Furthermore, "Red RV" is a much more useful (and succinct) call sign than "Experimental one two three four Alpha."
In an uncontrolled, visual environment where one technically doesn't even need to use the radio in the first place, I would think that a visual description is going to be a whole lot more informative to everyone else than yet another string of random letters and numbers.
 
I'd go further and say that the use of "experimental" in radio calls is useless and deprecated at this point. There's enough variety in homebuilts today that saying actual type is going to be a lot more informative to all involved, and less of a mouthful too.

One could argue that, at least with popular homebuilt types, saying type instead of the word "experimental" still informs ATC of the "experimental nature" of the aircraft.


In an uncontrolled, visual environment where one technically doesn't even need to use the radio in the first place, I would think that a visual description is going to be a whole lot more informative to everyone else than yet another string of random letters and numbers.

Going to agree with the Ramblin' Wreck, here - aircraft type tells me more about the expected speed and performance capabilities of the traffic I'm mingling with than does "Experimental 130YD." And I'll identify him by color before I'm ever able to read his N-number.

The broadcast of N numbers more often than required to meet FCC regs seems like it would only be helpful in <ahem> enforcement matters. I'm not inclined to help those along and thereby possibly act against my own self-interest.
 
Now Days there is no requirement for a radio station license or a radio operator license. Could someone knowledgeable weigh-in: Is there an FCC requirement to announce the N-number or call sign? I don't do it with my wireless telephone in the house. I know it is a requirement on licensed Ham frequencies, but what about aircraft frequencies?
At non-towered airports the N-number just ties up the frequency unless there are two or more of the same type in the area.
 
This one actually combines two issues in one. Too bad this AC missed the boat on eliminating the word "experimental" from non-tower radio use completely.

I will respectfully disagree with the FAA on this one though. As long as the call sign is used on initial call up, the FCC regs are complied with. Furthermore, "Red RV" is a much more useful (and succinct) call sign than "Experimental one two three four Alpha."

I agree.

And I will likely continue to use colors and type (with my call sign).
With proper radio technique, even adding a couple of extra words I can finish a radio call in about a 3rd the time that a large portion of the pilot community tends to.
 
Realistic or not. it is more likely that 2 or more "red & white" RVs are in the pattern than 2 or more aircraft with the same registration number.
 
The FAA is clear they want us to identify our planes as experimental when filing a flight plan, and I identify myself as experimental on initial contact to any controller.

As I understand, it's the FCC that requires aircraft identify their type and registration number when making radio calls. They govern the airwaves and they don't want anyone broadcasting a radio signal without properly identify themselves, and so, I can at least understand their logic in requiring me to use my N-number at an non-towered airport (even though I might not agree). However, I've never understood this to mean I must identify myself as experimental to meet the FCC regulation. Experimental is a category of aircraft, not a type. There are many types of aircraft that fall under the category of experimental and for a variety of reasons.

Can someone show me where either the FAA or FCC regulations explicitly state we are to identify ourselves as experimental at a non-towered airport?
 
It should be in your Operating Limitations, which make your airworthiness valid, so the must be followed.
 
I agree.

And I will likely continue to use colors and type (with my call sign).
With proper radio technique, even adding a couple of extra words I can finish a radio call in about a 3rd the time that a large portion of the pilot community tends to.

I concur too. It?s a lot easier to keep track of different types and colors than it is a jumble of different n#s that provide no means of aerial identification. Color can sometimes be hard to see in the air but it?s a lot easier to see than an N#!

I hope enough of the GA aviation community agrees and can get the FAA to rethink this change that seems to have come out of the blue.
 
It should be in your Operating Limitations, which make your airworthiness valid, so the must be followed.

The only requirement in anyone?s operating limitations is that they identify them self as experimental on initial call up to an air traffic control tower.
It is not required by operating limitations todo so for terminal or enroute radar or when making blind calls at uncontrol airports.
 
Seems like most everyone's got an opinion in this radio call thing. What say we all use the last page of the AC, titled Advisory Circular Feedback Form, and tell them what we the users think would improve the system?

Doug
Seattle area
 
The type of aircraft and color identification makes a lot more sense at non towered airports. I have NEVER been able to read another tail number in flight. When entering and planning the pattern N123A doesn?t tell me if they are flying a wide pattern at 120KTS or dropping in at 70. Big difference when following a trike or cub, and a fast glass or RV. How do you know if the call from N123A was the trike or Citation that you know are in the area??

Not debating the calls regulated at towered airports or talking to ATC. They always ask for type anyway.
 
It should be in your Operating Limitations, which make your airworthiness valid, so the must be followed.

The only relevant statement in my Operating Limitations is item 7. It reads:

"When filing a flight plan, the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section."


There is actually nothing in my Operating Limitations about radio use. I know it used to be included as Scott eluded. My certificate was issued in October. Are my Operating Limitations unique? Does this mean the FAA is subtly changing their opinion on this as it pertains to towered controlled airports?

It is clear the FAA and FCC want us to identify type and N-number of aircraft. If I choose to drive 45 when the speed limit is posted 40, then all can I say when the officer pulls me over is "guilty". I know the law, even if choose not to follow it. The use of the word "Experimental" when making a radio call is much less clear to me.
 
The only relevant statement in my Operating Limitations is item 7. It reads:

"When filing a flight plan, the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section."


There is actually nothing in my Operating Limitations about radio use. I know it used to be included as Scott eluded. My certificate was issued in October. Are my Operating Limitations unique? Does this mean the FAA is subtly changing their opinion on this as it pertains to towered controlled airports?

It is clear the FAA and FCC want us to identify type and N-number of aircraft. If I choose to drive 45 when the speed limit is posted 40, then all can I say when the officer pulls me over is "guilty". I know the law, even if choose not to follow it. The use of the word "Experimental" when making a radio call is much less clear to me.

The Op Lims for my 1999 RV-6 has the comment about including "experimental" in the initial radio call to a control tower.

The Op Lims for my 2016 Fokker replica does not have that comment but does state that "experimental" is to be noted in flight plans.

So yes, the FAA's stance on this matter has changed over the years.
 
Thinking back on the decades of flying at non-towered fields, I only identify an N-number called over the radio with a plane when it's someone I know very well. The rest of the time, all I hear is, "Anytown traffic, Piper blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah, left base, runway 14, Anytown." More than one Piper - which occurs fairly often - and I just don't keep up with the different planes by N-number. Sometimes I can keep up with the different voices, but when a second pilot/cfi calls out, that tosses out that differentiation.

What would be better is to simply say, "Anytown traffic, Piper turning base, runway 14, Anytown." Or, "...blue and white piper turning base."
 
What would be better is to simply say, "Anytown traffic, Piper turning base, runway 14, Anytown." Or, "...blue and white piper turning base."

To tell the honest truth, it probably doesn't matter. I use the color & type with my radio calls too but it doesn't take much distance before we lose the ability to distinguish colors so my "red RV" probably just looks black to most others in the area if they can see me at all.
 
I got in the habit of saying "Experimental RV" since someone pointed out years ago that "RV" sounds a lot like "Army".

I also subscribe to the color call out as it gives me a better chance of being differentiated from the other RV's or low wings. When there are more than one Cessna in the pattern I am always fearful I'm looking at the wrong one and the other might be right above/below me, as the students are always just using the N-number.
 
And...folks often seem to report what they see way out in front of them as their current position. Sometimes makes them really hard to find. I was trying to figure out one time, where the Bonanza was who I had heard reporting downwind and final. I called and asked him where he was and he reported 5 mile final. This was at an airport with a 600' AGL pattern altitude, normally flown very close in for terrain clearance.

Then there was the guy that tried to kill me flying the opposite pattern, NORDO. You haven't lived until you've done a full flap go-around, 2 up, in a C-150 at about 10000' density altitude starting about 20 feet from landing on an idiot. "Radio isn't required at a non-towered airport", he said when I tracked him down at the FBO. Also, "How was I supposed to know it isn't left traffic here?"

Ed Holyoke
 
Anti-authority?

Isn't the objective of giving position reports at non-towered airports to avoid a mid-air collision?? Giving your N number is of little value in accomplishing that. Giving the type of plane and color gives other aircraft in the vicinity of the airport a chance to identify your aircraft from other Cessnas or RV's etc.

Call that anti-authority if you must, but it may prevent a mid-air

Also, the only thing worst than no position report is an inaccurate position report. Most of the "uncomfortable proximity" situations I have experienced occurred when I was searching the sky where a pilot said he was only to find out later that he was someplace else. At least with no position report you are scanning the entire area for traffic and your scan is not diverted to the wrong place.

I do concur with the post that views that disagree with the AC should be passed along to the FAA for what that is worth.
 
Dabney, you are spot on.

And forgive me, 'Anti-authority attitude' is a pet peeve, I tried to relay my sarcasm with the roll eyes, but the limitations and lamentations of this here interwebs makes it hard to do so (Google 'Anti-authority attitude' and you will be hard pressed to find any reference to this 'thing' outside of the FAA).

Personally, all I try to do is build a picture in my mind when I am at an uncontrolled field. I could care less what one calls oneself, as long as one is consistent in said calls and does a reasonable job of reporting one's position. I'll figure out the relative speeds on my own, based on the calls. Extras like saying "Cub" and "Meridian" versus "Piper" do help build that picture.

My failing eyeballs have problems just spotting airplanes, let alone identifying airplanes. I rely more on the mental situational awareness than anything.

I tend towards "Experimental 28RV" hoping the "RV" gives others awareness. Still a tough call, as the home field has a bunch of -12's, so the "RV" tag could be as much as a 30 KIAS difference in pattern speeds. The -12's do tend to use "Light Sport" in their calls, so that helps.
 
To tell the honest truth, it probably doesn't matter. I use the color & type with my radio calls too but it doesn't take much distance before we lose the ability to distinguish colors so my "red RV" probably just looks black to most others in the area if they can see me at all.

Totally agree. I don?t find color particularly useful and aircraft type marginally useful ( knowing it?s a single engine low wing helps, listening to an exotic airplane type doesn?t ).

What I do find useful in my RV is my ADS-B. Makes me spot airplanes at least a mile sooner as I know precisely where to look ( I know where somebody 5 miles NE actually is not where he thinks he is .....) and it allows me to sequence myself into the approach based on the progress I see the other make relative to me way before I can see them visually.

You do still have to worry about NORAD and no transponder airplanes ( have one my self ) but ADS-B clearly improves the safety at non towered airports.

Oliver
 
Unless all have 1090 ADS-B out and in or TCAS or FLARM, you may still have to, "sense and avoid" by eyeballs. 978 UAT is not constant at 1000' AFE traffic pattern height, nor even the 1500' overhead.

Proper radios are like good shots, smooth, quick enough, precise and accurate.


The switch in my plane is labeled "TTP" - think then push
 
Back to the OP topic- the AC revision. 14CFR part 91.319(d)3 requires the use of experimental in the radio call, so they can?t change the AC without changing the rule, a much more difficult thing to do.
 
Back to the OP topic- the AC revision. 14CFR part 91.319(d)3 requires the use of experimental in the radio call, so they can’t change the AC without changing the rule, a much more difficult thing to do.

91.319(d)(3) requires the use of "experimental" "when operating into or out of airports with an operating control towers".

The AC addresses "non-towered airports".
 
Back to the OP topic- the AC revision. 14CFR part 91.319(d)3 requires the use of experimental in the radio call, so they can?t change the AC without changing the rule, a much more difficult thing to do.

91.319(d)(3) requires the use of "experimental" "when operating into or out of airports with an operating control towers".

The AC addresses "non-towered airports".

Mel, for clarification:

The newer Op Lims don't have verbage requiring "experimental" radio calls. But does 91.319(d)(3) require "experimental" radio calls to towered airports even though that statement has been removed from newer Op Lims?
 
Mel, for clarification:

The newer Op Lims don't have verbage requiring "experimental" radio calls. But does 91.319(d)(3) require "experimental" radio calls to towered airports even though that statement has been removed from newer Op Lims?

Above and beyond the operating limitations, we are still operating under part 91. So yes, 91.319(d)(3) applies.
 
And forgive me, 'Anti-authority attitude' is a pet peeve, I tried to relay my sarcasm with the roll eyes, but the limitations and lamentations of this here interwebs makes it hard to do so (Google 'Anti-authority attitude' and you will be hard pressed to find any reference to this 'thing' outside of the FAA).

The FAA makes it so easy, when they tell you things like "we agree that rule doesn't make sense, and we don't know why that's the rule either, but it's been the rule for a long time so we aren't going to change it". :rolleyes:
 
Sorry, but I read no "anti-authority" attitude anywhere above. I have read where people believe that in the name of improved safety, radio calls might be made different than specified in an advisory circular. Anti-authority would be violating the "rules" solely for the sake of contradicting or disrespecting the authority.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I read no "anti-authority" attitude anywhere above. I have read where people believe that in the name of improved safety, radio calls might be made different than specified in an advisory circular. Anti-authority would be violating the "rules" solely for the sake of contradicting or disrespecting the authority.

And by definition, something in an advisory circular is not a rule that must be strictly followed (research/Google regulatory or binding level of AC's if you are interested).
Often times an AC is an in depth description of a process or procedure that can be used to be assured that you are in compliance with the rules, but it does not automatically mean that it is the only acceptable way to do something.
 
Issue at non-towered Airport that gets me going are those doing an instrument approach into a non-towered Airport. Their radio call is typically based on waypoint or position on an approach plate. Means nothing to me flying VFR with out approach charts. Paragraph 9.5 of AC 90-66c states they need to make clear their position and not interfere for those in the pattern. If doing instrument approach please use non-towered VFR type position radio calls.

I regularly get instrument approaches coming in directly at me when I am taking off. Since they have no intention of landing they do not seem to mind approaching runway 180 degrees from wind direction for landing and pattern in use.
 
Issue at non-towered Airport that gets me going are those doing an instrument approach into a non-towered Airport. Their radio call is typically based on waypoint or position on an approach plate. Means nothing to me flying VFR with out approach charts.

Yeah, but it makes them sound like big-shot pilots, not like the poor untrained slobs that are piddling around VFR.......sorta like those premier pilots who are calling out all those "key" positions instead of common pattern positions.

"Y'all git outa my way, here I come!"
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but it makes them sound like big-shot pilots, not like the poor untrained slobs that are piddling around VFR.......sorta like those premier pilots who are calling out all those "key" positions instead of common pattern positions.
"Y'all git outa my way, here I come!"

On the other side of the coin, a friend of mine back in his training days (Circa 1967). Practicing "controlled airport" work, he was heard to say, "Addison Tower, This is the Ace from outer space. Request permission to buzz the place."
Addison tower's answer, "OK, Calder, You're cleared to land!"

Probably would not be tolerated today.
 
Sheesssh, I?m not sure which side to take here!

I?m sure we?ve all been the victim of erroneous VFR calls saying 5 miles east when they meant west. How about final runway 17 when they meant 35? How about reporting positions every 1/2 mile and clogging up the frequency? How about the 20 mile straight in final lunch run call?

I?ve done my fair share of Initial/Final Approach Fix Call?s on IAP?s, but for the past several years have also included a mileage for the VFR only guys. Lots of reasons to do opposite direction IAP?s for training and proficiency. Does an approach (practice or not) take precedent over anyone else in the pattern or do they need to fit in like everyone else?

It?s not an us (VFR) vs them (IFR) as we share the same passion and airspace. Both sides need to understand each other?s needs and intentions, how well do you understand what the other person is doing?

My limited experience has shown me too many pilots are focused on talking with very little if any emphasis on listening. LISTEN UP Pilots, build a mental picture of what is happinging in the pattern and fit yourself into that picture. And always verify out the window.......
 
Does an approach (practice or not) take precedent over anyone else in the pattern or do they need to fit in like everyone else?
LISTEN UP Pilots, build a mental picture of what is happinging in the pattern and fit yourself into that picture. And always verify out the window.......

An approach does NOT take precedence over other traffic. Remember that a radio is not required. Therefore NORDO traffic may not hear "approach traffic".

LISTEN UP? Of course, but also "HEAD ON A SWIVEL w/MK II Eyeballs"!
 
An approach does NOT take precedence over other traffic. Remember that a radio is not required. Therefore NORDO traffic may not hear "approach traffic".

LISTEN UP? Of course, but also "HEAD ON A SWIVEL w/MK II Eyeballs"!

Exactly!

It’s also safe to assume 1/2 the pilots with radios hear/listen as good as the NORDO Guy.
 
Last edited:
LISTEN UP? Of course, but also "HEAD ON A SWIVEL w/MK II Eyeballs"!

Where can I get me some of these Mk II eyeballs? I was only issued the Mk I series...

;)


And don't forget, you may have been the one with the mistuned radio :eek:
 
"How about final runway 17 when they meant 35?"

Andy, you must have heard me flying yesterday.

Dave
RV-6 175 hours with three smooth landings.
2000+ total flight hours and still screwing up the radios.
 
Advisory

I like the FAA. Well, I sort of put up with the FAA. I have noticed over a 40 year plus span of flying that the FAA never attends pilot funerals. They do, on the other hand, always cash their paychecks.
To build a mental picture of what is happening around a towerless field, I much prefer to hear airplane type. When the traffic level approaches 6 or more aircraft, I cannot for the life of me remember their call signs.
For a real life example of reality versus regulations, just think Oshkosh.
"land on the green dot" "rock your wings but don't talk back to me".
It keeps us from sharing paint and going to the ER or worse. Each of us will do what we find works out best. The Darwin effect will sort it all out in the end anyway. I am hoping to avoid that worst of pilot days, heading out and knowing it is your last day to fly. Or heading out and not knowing it is your last day to fly.
Have a great Saturday!
 
Last edited:
If someone's practicing an approach I modify my pattern to let them finish as a matter of courtesy.
 
AC 90-66B

You can quote rules all day, argue procedures and right-of-way situations until you turn blue (i.e. No one is listening anymore). You really HAVE to be heads up, situationally aware and courteous. Slow down in the pattern and just try to enjoy the pollen in your eyes while your burning that expensive Avgas or Jet A.
 
Issue at non-towered Airport that gets me going are those doing an instrument approach into a non-towered Airport. Their radio call is typically based on waypoint or position on an approach plate. Means nothing to me flying VFR with out approach charts. Paragraph 9.5 of AC 90-66c states they need to make clear their position and not interfere for those in the pattern. If doing instrument approach please use non-towered VFR type position radio calls.

I regularly get instrument approaches coming in directly at me when I am taking off. Since they have no intention of landing they do not seem to mind approaching runway 180 degrees from wind direction for landing and pattern in use.

That is definitely one of my pet peeves and I call people out on it all the time. You're in VMC you have to do your calls like you're under VFR flight rules, not IFR. It's not that I'm trying to be difficult, but I fly VFR into lots of different airports all over and don't have the plates open on my screen to know where the approaches and waypoints are.

The other one that bugs me is something that happened last year. Someone called "downwind Runway XX" and I'm a mile away and can't see them anywhere. I ask them for their location and they repeat downwind Runway XX. I say "abeam approach end or what?" and got a lot of grief about it. I told him "I don't see you and unless you want me to inadvertently fly into you please tell me more precisely where you are! I never got a reply. I turned back away from the airport until the guy had landed and cleared the runway before landing.
 
Back
Top