ATITAPA from an airliner....

[Kritchlow]

The most important thing is you all answer right then at the same time. It works even better if there are 5 airports on the frequency and no one heard the beginning of the ATITAPA call for which airport because everone is already stepping all over each other, they didn't say which airport at the end and 15 planes try and answer and you end up with an even more useless frequency for a minute or two.

This rarely is the case, but it’s possible. That’s why I’m in the “use judgement” camp.

But you sort of make my point... someone didn’t say which airport. So, an airliner should just assume it’s a different airport or should they ask?

 

[Hank S]

There is no “deviation” from the aim.

I use my judgement. You remember what that is?? If the pattern is blasted with traffic I would never make that call... for several reasons. One of which I could never remember (or even hear) where everyone is.0

Now, a sleepy place that makes you get an IFR clearance at the departure end of the runway I have zero chance of hearing someone. I will carefully look, and as an added layer make the call. Also “area” vs “pattern” is an important distinction.
As Cooter noted there could be sky divers close by, or other situations. Also airplanes 10 miles out may be in the freq but not yet making pattern calls. At jet speeds those closure rates are fast. It might be a good idea to have a picture (as good as it can be) to avoid them.

The bold part above is what this whole thread is about. AIM advises to NEVER MAKE THIS CALL. You are defending making the call, even saying that sometimes it is necessary.

Is that not deviating from the AIM? Or do we have a basic communication error here, without even having a congested frquency to blame???

 

[Kritchlow]

The bold part above is what this whole thread is about. AIM advises to NEVER MAKE THIS CALL. You are defending making the call, even saying that sometimes it is necessary.

Is that not deviating from the AIM? Or do we have a basic communication error here, without even having a congested frquency to blame???

Advises

 

[Hank S]

Advises

The entire AIM is advisory. What other parts do you suggest I line out in black marker? Or do you simply recommend that all pilots just go out and do whatever we want, as long as we aren't in conflict with the FARs? Man, that would have made my checkrides so much easier, I could have blown off half of the oral exams . . . "No, see, that doesn't matter, the AIM is only advisory. That's why I cut out the back half of this here FAR/AIM book."

 

[Kritchlow]

The entire AIM is advisory. What other parts do you suggest I line out in black marker? Or do you simply recommend that all pilots just go out and do whatever we want, as long as we aren't in conflict with the FARs? Man, that would have made my checkrides so much easier, I could have blown off half of the oral exams . . . "No, see, that doesn't matter, the AIM is only advisory. That's why I cut out the back half of this here FAR/AIM book."

One last example.
We used to depart a small airport east of Wichita on a day basis. Medium to slow traffic for an uncontrolled field. We flew an extremely high performance jet.

We got our IFR clearance, took a gook look around, than announced “jabara jet1 departing runway 19 Jabara, traffic please advise”.

It’s not the be all end all, but it is one extra layer of protection imo.

 

[Cooter]

If he makes unambiguous radio calls not requesting everyone in the area to answer, we will all be able to help him out by expediting or delaying whatever we are already doing.

I've worked politely with twins and jets approaching and landing at the same uncontrolled field as I was, with no need for either one of us to descend to ATITAPA or name calling, just standard position calls. Sometimes I was off the runway before they were on 1 mile final, sometimes I deviated to clear the way for them because I was in a good mood and chose to yield my right of way. Sorry, "I exercised my captain's authority" and circled somewhere nearby.

No one is saying that ATITPPA is the only way or should be adopted by all. He’s determined that it is the safest way in some circumstances and chooses to use it. He’s not breaking any regs and based on my experience, I would say it’s likely that he’s chosen the safest route for some situations. I’ve never used it but the concept makes sense to me, in the situation he’s describing. Only thing I might change though is not saying “in the area” but reduce it to the quadrant he was approaching from.

 

[Palmpilot]

I’ll add something here that may bridge the gap. Kritchlow most likely has his opinion because of past experiences. There is a difference in saying that something should be the norm and that there are sometimes gaps that need filled in.

Taking a jet into small uncontrolled fields can be a challenge and there are some hazards that aren’t properly addressed by the normal procedures. It is nearly impossible to build a complete picture by monitoring CTAF when moving at jet speeds. If he wants to try to improve his SA in the short amount of time available, I’ll help him out. It’s pilots using their good judgement and working together that keeps uncontrolled fields safe.

I understand that some people have their reasons for doing things differently than I do, so I try not to get too wrapped around the axle about it. However, for my own actions, I try to be practical about things.

If I'm midfield downwind and he's on final, I don't see how it helps him to immediately know about my presence. I know that airliners land a lot faster than I do, so I'm going to wait until he is abeam me on final before I turn base, and I may extend downwind even farther, for wake turbulence avoidance. If, on the other hand, I'm in a position where we could be a factor for each other, you bet I'm going to speak up immediately on hearing his position and intentions, regardless of whether he says ATITAPA or not. So for example if I'm near the point where I would normally turn base and I'm going to extend my downwind to land behind him, I would say so, again with or without his ATITAPA call.

If I immediately speak up when I'm midfield downwind and he's on final, I run the risk of garbling or blocking a transmission from someone who is in a position to be a factor.

 

[Hank S]

One last example.
We used to depart a small airport east of Wichita on a day basis. Medium to slow traffic for an uncontrolled field. We flew an extremely high performance jet.

We got our IFR clearance, took a gook look around, than announced “jabara jet1 departing runway 19 Jabara, traffic please advise”.

It’s not the be all end all, but it is one extra layer of protection imo.

That's a good way to do it. See, no ATITAPA to mess up the radio.

I've shared departure from uncontrolled fields with Delta and United in a similar manner. I did have trouble on approach one time finding a Cessna departing somewhere I'd never been before on a trip out West. On his third call he said "Cessna, no, Citation XXX" and i looked 90° left and saw him disappearing over the mountains that I had flown around. Quite different, as I'd been looking out my windshield before then.

 

[RyanB]

One last example.
We used to depart a small airport east of Wichita on a day basis. Medium to slow traffic for an uncontrolled field. We flew an extremely high performance jet.

We got our IFR clearance, took a gook look around, than announced “jabara jet1 departing runway 19 Jabara, traffic please advise”.

It’s not the be all end all, but it is one extra layer of protection imo.

I agree. Certain situations make the phrase appropriate. I’m amazed at how much of a tizzy some get into when this subject arises. It’s definitely not the end all, and to think some would dismiss a pilot who uses this while approaching a non-towered traffic pattern really surprises me. So much for promoting safety..

 

[Cooter]

The entire AIM is advisory. What other parts do you suggest I line out in black marker? Or do you simply recommend that all pilots just go out and do whatever we want, as long as we aren't in conflict with the FARs? Man, that would have made my checkrides so much easier, I could have blown off half of the oral exams . . . "No, see, that doesn't matter, the AIM is only advisory. That's why I cut out the back half of this here FAR/AIM book."

That reasoning is basically the slippery slope fallacy. If we deviate at one point, we must therefore accept deviating at all points. Your position then must be that we can never deviate from the AIM guidance. I don’t think that represents either of your opinions.

 

[Kritchlow]

That's a good way to do it. See, no ATITAPA to mess up the radio.

I've shared departure from uncontrolled fields with Delta and United in a similar manner. I did have trouble on approach one time finding a Cessna departing somewhere I'd never been before on a trip out West. On his third call he said "Cessna, no, Citation XXX" and i looked 90° left and saw him disappearing over the mountains that I had flown around. Quite different, as I'd been looking out my windshield before then.

Glad it worked out for you. Generally it does even if nobody has a radio.
Just playing the odds here.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't think it's one of the seven deadly sins to say it, but in order to believe that it adds value, you would have to believe that a position and intentions report without the ATITAPA would not be enough to get pilots to speak up if they are in a position to be a factor. I find that hard to believe. Most pilots are not suicidal, and for the rare case where one is, what others say on the radio is unlikely to make a difference.

The strongly-worded AIM recommendation against it does seem a bit overdone, however.

 

[Cooter]

I understand that some people have their reasons for doing things differently than I do, so I try not to get too wrapped around the axle about it. However, for my own actions, I try to be practical about things.

If I'm midfield downwind and he's on final, I don't see how it helps him to immediately know about my presence. I know that airliners land a lot faster than I do, so I'm going to wait until he is abeam me on final before I turn base, and I may extend downwind even farther, for wake turbulence avoidance. If, on the other hand, I'm in a position where we could be a factor for each other, you bet I'm going to speak up immediately on hearing his position and intentions, regardless of whether he says ATITAPA or not. So for example if I'm near the point where I would normally turn base and I'm going to extend my downwind to land behind him, I would say so, again with or without his ATITAPA call.

If I immediately speak up when I'm midfield downwind and he's on final, I run the risk of garbling or blocking a transmission from someone who is in a position to be a factor.

In that situation, the jet pilot really only needs to know how many are in the pattern to be looking for. Otherwise the normal calls suffice.

Quick example: I was taking a jet into the overhead at an uncontrolled field once and I announced my presence and intentions 20 miles out. I came in at 300kts, and from the time I reported until I was in the break this lady in a Cardinal never quit yapping about where she was and what she was doing. She literally never quit transmitting and eventually just departed the pattern to make room for me. All of that was unnecessary and just made the situation worse. And, all of that happened without a ATITAPA call.

I think she was inexperienced and kind of panicked when she heard she was going to share the pattern with a jet.

 

[Kritchlow]

I don't think it's one of the seven deadly sins to say it, but in order to believe that it adds value, you would have to believe that a position and intentions report without the ATITAPA would not be enough to get pilots to speak up if they are in a position to be a factor. I find that hard to believe. Most pilots are not suicidal, a for the rare case where one is, what others say on the radio is unlikely to make a difference.

I agree with the premise of pilots not being suicidal, but we all are prone to making mistakes.
My point is,in certain circumstances, I try to provide one more layer of protection.

 

[Palmpilot]

I agree with the premise of pilots not being suicidal, but we all are prone to making mistakes.
My point is,in certain circumstances, I try to provide one more layer of protection.

I just don't see how it adds any protection, but what the heck, it's only a difference of opinion, after all!

 

[Everskyward]

The strongly-worded AIM recommendation against it does seem a bit overdone, however.

It's also fairly new (+-10 years). I have no clue why they felt they needed to micromanage.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's also fairly new (+-10 years). I have no clue why they felt they needed to micromanage.

It's the bureaucratic way!

 

[mscard88]

Seriously, why are you so worked up over this?

Why is anyone.

Geez and this was discussed a few weeks ago with the same players.

 

[mscard88]

The strongly-worded AIM recommendation against it does seem a bit overdone, however.

The FAA did that just for POA. So we could have "discussions" about it here.

It is strange though that the AIM is nonregulatory but then they emphasized that as though it's a regulation don't y'all think?

 

[Palmpilot]

The FAA did that just for POA. So we could have "discussions" about it here.

It is strange though that the AIM is nonregulatory but then they emphasized that as though it's a regulation don't y'all think?

If they put it in the regulations, they have to go through the NPRM process. The introduction to the AIM mentions that it is non-regulatory, but then they write some of it in such a way as to make it sound mandatory. Bureaucrats like to have it both ways.

 

[Sundancer]

Maybe this? I was doing a run-up at an uncontrolled field, no one else flying on a weekday; I was just about ready to bolt, and a Citation called; not literally ATITAPA, just that he was heading in, and his intended runway. Clearly (I think) he'd been listening to CTAF and hadn't heard anything. He was straight in, pretty far out, but I wanted to watch. I came up on CTAF, mentioned there was no other traffic in the pattern, and I was holding short, same runway, to see a pretty airplane land.

I don't really know if this was "AIM approved" and really don't care enough to read up on it; it might/might have helped the other guy out a bit, just to know the traffic situation, and if saw me holding short as he got close, to be aware I knew he was coming in, and I wouldn't pull out in front of him.

Honestly, if he'd just said ATITPA, I'd have done the same thing. A lot of the AIM is good, and some of it is too silly for words - a bureaucratic attempt to cover all situations.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm pretty sure that there is nothing in the AIM to prohibit providing aviation-related information that might be of use to other pilots on the CTAF.