AUS Again

Velocity173

Velocity173

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
15,542
Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
The overhead can be a wonderful tool to get traffic into the pattern. But, if ATC doesn’t understand the request, it can be a safety hazard.

 
Sounds like a normal day at work for me. The difference between Navy/Marine and Air Force pilots is notable. The controller should have given pattern altitude and direction of turns on the initial transmission but he didn’t. That was the “misunderstanding”.

Edit: I’m not saying that one branch is better than the other. I’m saying the way they speak and request things is different. Navy/Marines like to say “interrogative” instead of just asking the question. Air Force C-130 guys are annoying…have I mentioned this before?
 
Last edited:
Timbeck2 said:
Sounds like a normal day at work for me. The difference between Navy/Marine and Air Force pilots is notable. The controller should have given pattern altitude and direction of turns on the initial transmission but he didn’t. That was the “misunderstanding”.
Click to expand...
Yep. Should’ve never approved that unrestricted altitude nonsense with EJA right in front of him. Maybe it’s buried in comms but I never heard a traffic call on EJA either.

The problem with the C and the overhead is 500 ft vert sep (unless visual) with VFR vs IFR. That’s going to be hard to do with the amount of traffic AUS gets. Back in the day we’d throw the fighters into the overhead right above IFR PARs on final. We’d give a traffic call and send them to tower. Difference is, it was a class D and the IFRs were generally no factor because they were 1,000 ft below at initial.
 
Another thing. Approach gave traffic on the Citation (FTH) that he was supposed to follow. He never followed him and they never went over him. Waste of a traffic call. Should’ve given traffic on EJA. And stop adding “flight” to the callsign! Ugh, my pet peeve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top