Aviation Aggravations

Re: Aviation Aggrivations

SCCutler said:
It is for exactly this reason that I stopped flying to airports with runways which are aligned between 001* and 009*- the hazards are simply greater than I am willing to accept.

The only exception is when I fly to a controlled field, in which event I'll accept a clearance to land on the affected runway- but only if they articulate BOTH NUMBERS!
Click to expand...
:rofl:
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

sba55 said:
I suspect it also helps when you can establish visual contact because it gives them less stringent separation minimums.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, not in Class A.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

sba55 said:
I suspect it also helps when you can establish visual contact because it gives them less stringent separation minimums. That way, they don't have to vector you or have you change altitude.
Click to expand...

Plus you never know when something might cause the other airplane to be at the wrong altitude undetected. Belts and suspenders.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Everskyward said:
I always thought it was strange that ATC gave traffic calls in the flight levels because everyone is under positive control. I think Adam might be onto something when he says they may be just courtesy calls so you don't get nervous and try to change altitude or course on your own.
Click to expand...

FAA Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control

Chapter 5. Radar

Section 1. General

5-1-8. MERGING TARGET PROCEDURES
a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging target procedures to all radar identified:
1. Aircraft at 10,000 feet and above.
2. Turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude.
[SIZE=-2]REFERENCE-[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]P/CG Term- Turbojet Aircraft.[/SIZE]
3. Presidential aircraft regardless of altitude.
b. Issue traffic information to those aircraft listed in subpara a whose targets appear likely to merge unless the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical separation minima.
EXAMPLE-
"Traffic twelve o'clock, seven miles, eastbound, MD-80, at one seven thousand."

"United Sixteen and American Twenty-five, traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, eastbound seven twenty seven at flight level three three zero, westbound MD-Eighty at flight level three one zero."
c. When both aircraft in subpara b are in RVSM airspace, and vertically separated by 1,000 feet, if either pilot reports they are unable to maintain RVSM due to turbulence or mountain wave, vector either aircraft to avoid merging with the target of the other aircraft.
EXAMPLE-
"Delta One Twenty Three, fly heading two niner zero, vector for traffic. Traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, MD-80 eastbound at flight level three two zero."
d. If the pilot requests, vector his/her aircraft to avoid merging with the target of previously issued traffic.
NOTE-
Aircraft closure rates are so rapid that when applying merging target procedures, controller issuance of traffic must be commenced in ample time for the pilot to decide if a vector is necessary.
e. If unable to provide vector service, inform the pilot.
NOTE-
The phraseology "Unable RVSM due turbulence (or mountain wave)" is only intended for severe turbulence or other weather encounters with altitude deviations of approximately 200 feet or more.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
b. Issue traffic information to those aircraft listed in subpara a whose targets appear likely to merge unless the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical separation minima.
c. When both aircraft in subpara b are in RVSM airspace, and vertically separated by 1,000 feet, if either pilot reports they are unable to maintain RVSM due to turbulence or mountain wave, vector either aircraft to avoid merging with the target of the other aircraft
d. If the pilot requests, vector his/her aircraft to avoid merging with the target of previously issued traffic.
e. If unable to provide vector service, inform the pilot.
Click to expand...
I have frequently been issued traffic information when none of these conditions apply unless the vertical separation in "b" means something other than 1,000 feet in RVSM airspace.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Well, yes, they can be, but I can't recall ever receiving a report from a tracked aircraft overhead a NAVAID, or at an intersection, waypoint, or DME fix, that was not actually at that location. That's why I trust a report at a fix and don't trust a report of just some distance from the field.
Click to expand...

You should come and fly at KPAO sometime. :smile: Arriving from the east everyone reports flying over Leslie Salt, and the west everyone reports SLAC. But there is a large variance in where people actually are when they report these (very easy to identify) landmarks.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Everskyward said:
I have frequently been issued traffic information when none of these conditions apply unless the vertical separation in "b" means something other than 1,000 feet in RVSM airspace.
Click to expand...

It's required in the situations specified, a lot of controllers do it whenever targets merge with minimum vertical separation.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

colohan said:
You should come and fly at KPAO sometime. :smile: Arriving from the east everyone reports flying over Leslie Salt, and the west everyone reports SLAC. But there is a large variance in where people actually are when they report these (very easy to identify) landmarks.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like Leslie Salt or SLAC are NAVAIDs, intersections, waypoints, or DME fixes.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

sba55 said:
Great, now I've just used up 6 minutes of my time watching this! :smilewinkgrin:

-Felix
Click to expand...

Not trying to take the thread off topic, but for those of us with a bit more age, that was from a great Sci-fi movie called Forbidden Planet. Monsters of the Id was neat stuff.

Best,

Dave
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Dave Siciliano said:
John:

<snip>

BTY, great to see you post on here. Most folks probably don't know how many articles you've written primarily in the avionics area and how great you are at detecting great Bar-b-que!

<snip>
Click to expand...
John, Welcome to the board.

Now, what's this about BBQ? That would be a worthy discussion on this board!

I went to Cooper's both yesterday and today. Ya know... it's tough having your students drag you to these hick towns with hole-in-the-wall BBQ joints. Life's just so tough as a CFI!


:D
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
[SIZE=-1]"Heading zero two zero"[/SIZE]

Because FAA Order JO 7110.65S paragraph 2-4-17.g. NUMBERS USAGE directs me to say it that way.
Click to expand...

I bet it also directs you to clear planes to land on "runway six," not "runway zero six" too, right?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

I just remembered another one while looking at Twitter last night: People who spell "flies" F-L-Y-S. The only thing I can find in the dictionary for "flys" is:

4 (pl. usu. flys) Brit. & historical: A one-horse hackney carriage.

So, unless you are living in the 1700's and own more than one single-horse-driven hackney carriage, it's spelled "flies."
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman
When a tower controller clears a plane "into position and hold", the response is "On the hold". Does that even make sense?
Click to expand...

Ghery said:
Nxxxxx, position and hold.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's required, but I always include the designated runway in any readback I make of a takeoff, crossing, hold short, or TIPH instruction. And I find my eyes are visually looking at the runway marker sign to get a visual "agreement" between my readback, the controller's instruction, and the number I see on that red sign.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

flyingcheesehead said:
I just remembered another one while looking at Twitter last night: People who spell "flies" F-L-Y-S. The only thing I can find in the dictionary for "flys" is:

4 (pl. usu. flys) Brit. & historical: A one-horse hackney carriage.

So, unless you are living in the 1700's and own more than one single-horse-driven hackney carriage, it's spelled "flies."
Click to expand...
Is there a point to your post?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

flyingcheesehead said:
I bet it also directs you to clear planes to land on "runway six," not "runway zero six" too, right?
Click to expand...

That would be subparagraph i:

i. Runways. The word "runway," followed by the separate digits of the runway designation. For a parallel runway, state the word "left," "right," or "center" if the letter "L," "R," or "C" is included in the designation.


EXAMPLE-


[SIZE=-1]Designation[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Statement[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Runway Three."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8L [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Runway Eight Left."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]27R[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]"Runway Two Seven Right."[/SIZE]
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
I'm just trying to determine what knowledge level can be reasonably expected of VFR pilots.
Click to expand...

Several people have told you their opinions, but it seems as though you couldn't care less about opinions other than yours. If you're trying to "determine" anything, you may as well be having the conversation with a mirror.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
Is there a point to your post?
Click to expand...

SCCutler said:
...don't use "flys"? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah... That's pretty much it.

Notice, Kenny, that I said "while looking at Twitter." I don't even know if you're on Twitter, and if you are, I sure as heck ain't followin' ya.

Believe me, while "flys" may be up there in my aviation aggravations, your use of "flys" is pretty far down on the long list of Kenny aggravations. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah... That's pretty much it.

Notice, Kenny, that I said "while looking at Twitter." I don't even know if you're on Twitter, and if you are, I sure as heck ain't followin' ya.

Believe me, while "flys" may be up there in my aviation aggravations, your use of "flys" is pretty far down on the long list of Kenny aggravations. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Why did you bring it up? I'm confused.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

FlyNE said:
Several people have told you their opinions, but it seems as though you couldn't care less about opinions other than yours. If you're trying to "determine" anything, you may as well be having the conversation with a mirror.
Click to expand...

Several people have cited various things that VFR pilots cannot be expected to know. I don't believe anyone has yet offered an opinion on what VFR pilots should know.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

I'm late to this thread...but in answering the question of what a VFR pilot should know.... Sure you can point to the PTS but that doesn't cover everything, ie, the everyday real world aspects of being a pilot. You can be mechanical and precisely within the PTS or you can be a pilot who demonstrates an ability equal to one's stated experience.

To wit, if you say you are a Comm rated pilot, I expect you to act like it. Don't, as example, call me to ask what runway is in use. Or, don't call from 40 nm out, and every 5 miles and still flub your every call.

It really isn't a question of one being a "VFR pilot" or not. It is, as has always been, a question of proficiency, whether VFR or IFR, airline capt or pre-solo student.


So there it is, my aggrivation (:smile:) would be pilots whose apparent capabilites do not match their level of experience. And you are known by the type of equipment you fly: I think it resonable to expect pilot proficiency to match aircraft capabilitiy.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

The PTS for any certificate or rating is simply what must be satisfactorily demonstrated during the practical test in order to obtain that ticket. It's by no means the limit of what I teach my students and certainly not the limit of what one could learn.

However, there is nothing in any published document by the FAA or any aviation education professional to suggest a private pilot without an instrument rating should know and understand approach fixes as Steven has indicated he believes.

That alone is my point. The PTS was merely an answer to his latest question.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Aggravations. Clogging the unicom with dinner date conversations, where to eat, where ya been BS. Calls to unicom to inquire weather/winds when there is an AWOS on the field. "What runway is in use?". Excuse me, three ways to figure it out: LISTEN to the UNICOM assuming no one is trying to make a dinner date, LISTEN to the AWOS, decide for yourself.
Oh, and griping about gripes. Let it go.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
However, there is nothing in any published document by the FAA or any aviation education professional to suggest a private pilot without an instrument rating should know and understand approach fixes as Steven has indicated he believes.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is something in a document published by the FAA that suggests a private pilot without an instrument rating should at least know the location of approach fixes. AC 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers" contains the following example of self-announcement phraseology:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

By the way, Steven has not indicated he believes a private pilot without an instrument rating should know and understand approach fixes.



That alone is my point. The PTS was merely an answer to his latest question.
Click to expand...

Actually, it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

sba55 said:
I have the same issue with those traffic calls. Every once in a while, I get a call for traffic >10 miles away. At night, that can actually be helpful. During the day, I stand no chance of seeing it. I start looking, but I often just forget where the traffic was after a minute or so, especially when I then get more traffic calls....for the most part, I think controller experience has something to do with this. If I'm in the flight levels, I don't mind the long range traffic calls, but at 10,000', they're not useful.

People who take up a lot of time getting VFR advisories can be frustrating. It also doesn't help our image with ATC. When I've had to deviate around cells, I try to request deviations left and right of course as necessary and quite often avoid having to make additional requests.



Great, now I've just used up 6 minutes of my time watching this! :smilewinkgrin:

-Felix
Click to expand...

I always make my first call at 10 miles to an "uncontrolled" airport when I'm VFR. You can't see me but know about wher I am and where I will probably be when you can see me.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Does it contain an opinion on what VFR pilots should know?
Click to expand...
The answer was my opinion. It's clearly the opinion of those who wrote and approved the current PTS as published.

But, a reading of the PTS suggest it wasn't established based on opinion as much as it was common sense... something you're lacking; in my opinion, of course!
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
The answer was my opinion. It's clearly the opinion of those who wrote and approved the current PTS as published.

But, a reading of the PTS suggest it wasn't established based on opinion as much as it was common sense... something you're lacking; in my opinion, of course!
Click to expand...

So what does the PTS say VFR pilots should know about this issue?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Actually, there is something in a document published by the FAA that suggests a private pilot without an instrument rating should at least know the location of approach fixes. AC 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers" contains the following example of self-announcement phraseology:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

By the way, Steven has not indicated he believes a private pilot without an instrument rating should know and understand approach fixes.
Click to expand...
The above is what should be spoken by the one making the approach. This in no way mandates the non-instrument rated pilot or primary student in the pattern must know or be able to interpret what and where the FAF is located.

It also does not excuse the instrument student or instrument pilot from insuring their position is clearly understood in the simplest of terms such as "five miles out, on final." This would be a common sense addition which the student or non-instrument rated pilot in the pattern could easily interpret.



Actually, it wasn't.[/quote]
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
So what does the PTS say VFR pilots should know about this issue?
Click to expand...
It doesn't because such knowledge is clearly not a function of a non-instrument rated private pilot.

Where's that icon for beating a dead horse?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
So what does the PTS say VFR pilots should know about this issue?
Click to expand...

Steven, you already indicated you realize you're in the minority with your opinion on this so I doubt that what I think will sway your mind. But I must say that (as a 3000+ hr commercial pilot for whatever that's worth), it's my opinion that pilots with more advanced ratings are the ones who should be expected to go beyond PTS requirements, not the other way around. The suggested call you've posted is appropriate for an IFR pilot (or student) to make to ATC, but expecting transient pilots whether instrument rated or not, to be know the location of every fix on every approach is extremely unrealistic. Heck, I have enough trouble finding half of the fixes that exist at my home drome as many of them have obscure names and only appear on one of many approach charts. And while it is plausible that any pilot could recognize a pilot broadcasting "FAF inbound" along with a runway number indicates that pilot is about 5 miles away from that runway's threshold, chances are that any non IR pilot in the vicinity will not come to that conclusion, so why not as a savvy IR pilot make a transmission that is far more likely to be understood by everyone. It's certainly to my own advantage to do so when making an instrument approach to an uncontrolled field as I certainly want everyone else to have as clear a picture as possible regarding my location.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

I'm bored with this game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top