Close call this weekend

jspilot said:
I really appreciate the feedback from all of you. I am also glad to know that I did not do anything wrong. I will say, a second point has come up here that is interesting regarding talking to other pilots directly at non-towered fields. I would say that I do this frequently during potential conflicts. People who have experience flying at busy non-towered fields, will know that poor information from other pilots is just as bad than no information. If I can't locate an aircraft in the pattern and I'm entering the pattern I will sometimes ask " hey aircraft on downwind where on the downwind are you?" Similarly if I'm trying to sequence into the pattern I may ask a plane who is on the upwind if they are remaining in the pattern or not. To me, these instances seem like appropriate times to engage in real quick clarification so that any potential collision can be avoided. Almost always does the plane respond and I would too if another pilot asked me for clarification. Responding and helping each other avoid a mid-air is what all of us should be trying to do. My ego or anyone else's ego won't mean anything if we collide and tumble from the sky!
Click to expand...

I have had a number of quick "non-standard radio calls" with other planes at un-towered fields. About a month ago I was doing pattern work at night at Corona and there was another plane doing the same thing. He had been following me in the pattern for 2-3 landings when I got a "Hey Mooney, where are you at?" I told him I was just turning base and he reported seeing me again. Seems that my lights had mixed with the city lights below enough that he lost track of me. A quick radio call was all it took.

Just last week I was out there again just burning fuel and working on night landings. A Bonanza announced he was inbound 10 miles east of the field. I reported where I was and he then asked if there was anyone else in the pattern. I told him I was the only one there and had been for the past 45 minutes. He asked if I would mind if he made a straight in. I told him no problem (I was turning final by this point and would be out of his way in time). I cleared the runway as he announced a 2 mile final and he was clear by the time I had taxied back and was ready to depart. It saved him some time and didn't affect me at all. I'm in favor of not cluttering up the radios, but sometimes a little extra communication is good for everyone.
 
Just one thought on this: If you are going to cross mid-field and turn to enter the downwind directly, you really must do this crossing at pattern altitude. Descending into the pattern on downwind is super bad form. If instead you are crossing the field to tear-drop into a 45 for downwind (the preferred method), you should do the crossing above pattern altitude and descend in the teardrop such that when on the 45 you are now at pattern altitude.
 
George Mohr said:
Just one thought on this: If you are going to cross mid-field and turn to enter the downwind directly, you really must do this crossing at pattern altitude. Descending into the pattern on downwind is super bad form. If instead you are crossing the field to tear-drop into a 45 for downwind (the preferred method), you should do the crossing above pattern altitude and descend in the teardrop such that when on the 45 you are now at pattern altitude.
Click to expand...

Yup, what I teach. I have 'em go about a mile maybe on the teardrop before turning inbound for the 45.
 
George Mohr said:
Just one thought on this: If you are going to cross mid-field and turn to enter the downwind directly, you really must do this crossing at pattern altitude. Descending into the pattern on downwind is super bad form. If instead you are crossing the field to tear-drop into a 45 for downwind (the preferred method), you should do the crossing above pattern altitude and descend in the teardrop such that when on the 45 you are now at pattern altitude.
Click to expand...
I hear this often (don't descend on downwind), but I don't have a problem with it. The Navy has been operating that way for a long time and it works out fine. The biggest issue is to find out who's in the pattern and to deconflict with them. If you've done that, descending out of the turn onto downwind isn't that big of a deal. If the pattern is full, or your SA is low, I wouldn't recommend turning directly to downwind. I would go out and re-enter on a 45.
 
Aside from the possibility that you might just miss something, the real problem is NORDO traffic. It's out there and there's no way to SA around that. Descending on the downwind means you can't possibly watch for the traffic at the point where you are most likely to occupy the same airspace.
 
George Mohr said:
Aside from the possibility that you might just miss something, the real problem is NORDO traffic. It's out there and there's no way to SA around that. Descending on the downwind means you can't possibly watch for the traffic at the point where you are most likely to occupy the same airspace.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't see how your watching for it any less in that circumstance. In both, you are looking for the traffic before you enter. Andy in my experience, expecting VFR traffic to be on altitude is expecting too much. By being above TPA, you are reducing your scan by isolating the traffic below you. By being co-altitude, you are putting yourself belly up to the traffic entering on a 45, who coincidentally may be belly up to you. I don't see much difficulty in doing two quick check turns and looking down to clear before descending into the pattern. I come in above TPA, gauge the pattern and determine which entry would be most appropriate. The airports I fly at seldom have other traffic in them though. You almost always have it all to yourself except for an occasional arrival or departure.
 
danhagan said:
That might place you in a head on situation at a lot of fields if they're practicing instrument approaches on the non-wind favored runway.
Click to expand...

How common is that and why? I suppose I could imagine they would use that to eliminate potential congestion? Never really hear about that around here....

I was always taught in the "pattern" or on 45 at pattern alt. so that's what I've been aiming at. I start communicating 10 miles out so there's no doubt about my intentions
 
Matt C said:
How common is that and why? I suppose I could imagine they would use that to eliminate potential congestion? Never really hear about that around here....

I was always taught in the "pattern" or on 45 at pattern alt. so that's what I've been aiming at. I start communicating 10 miles out so there's no doubt about my intentions
Click to expand...

Around terrain, it can be pretty common. The terrain determines the approach direction, not the wind, in that case.

At several of the airports around here, the SFO Class B forces all instrument approaches from one direction. That's usually prevailing winds, but occasionally it isn't.
 
There are not-so-smart pilot and there are jerk pilots. Not always two separate pools, they intermix too. :)

I have been trying for a long time to educate instrument pilots that using IFR lingo on a VMC day with VFR pilots can be counter-productive.
"... over FOSHO at MDA RNAV, will go published missed to BOHOO and then VOR/DME R197 from IAF with HILPT after" helps nobody.
Fortunately, most instrument students/pilots agree that using VFR reporting on a VMC day is much clearer and safer.
 
Skates97 said:
I'm in favor of not cluttering up the radios, but sometimes a little extra communication is good for everyone.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
I am a strong advocate of talking TO other pilots if safety requires it. Engaging them in a direct conversation is more productive than just making blind radio calls with position updates.

If I don't have the other guy in sight (and the frequency is not crowded), I talk to him to find him in the sky.
Lord knows I've had many exchanges such as:
- "Bugsmasher on the go 13"
- "I am still 3 miles east"
- "Bugsmasher on base 13"
Great, I can join downwind with a nice 45 ... wait ...
- "What's your heading, Bugsmasher?"
- "Um, about 040"
- "Are you on crosswind 13?"
- "Oh ... yeah"
- "Roger, I will do a circle and join downwind behind you"

Scary situations, especially if you are looking for traffic in the wrong place and can't find him .... for a good reason.
 
Good information in this thread. While I am a relatively low time pilot, my job has been industrial safety for almost 20 years. One thing I have noticed over the years, especially in chemical processes, is when something isn't quite right people still tend to blindly follow procedure. That can lead to problems. This thought has crossed my mind before in flying as we have the FAR AIM and ATC (at times) to follow, which can be very specific. Just because we are in "regulated" arenas doesn't mean we don't need situational awareness and need to use our judgement to make informed decisions. I know I was guilty of this at times as a student, hopefully as i continue to become a more competent or experienced pilot, I get better at understanding what the heck is going on around me. Then, we get to re-hash here for every one to share their stories and thoughts!
 
Matt C said:
How common is that and why? I suppose I could imagine they would use that to eliminate potential congestion? Never really hear about that around here....

I was always taught in the "pattern" or on 45 at pattern alt. so that's what I've been aiming at. I start communicating 10 miles out so there's no doubt about my intentions
Click to expand...

I was replying to entering on the upwind. At my field RWY 10 is the only instrument approach, but 28 is the calm wind runway. South of the field is off limits due to sky diving activity. If you practice the instrument approach to 10 with the missed, and someone is upwind 28 (entering the pattern or called go-around) then you're in a head-to-head situation either way, and BOTH aircraft will be turning north to avoid the sky dive area.
 
There are uncontrolled fields around here where the IFR approach minimums are actually ABOVE the VFR traffic pattern. Flying the missed while doing a "practice approach" could possibly be a non-issue, but just announcing that they are flying the missed doesn't absolve them of the responsibility to see and avoid.

~Marc

MAKG1 said:
The least he could do is say what the procedure is below TPA. He should know it, or he's screwing up even worse; it should have been briefed prior to initiating the approach.

"Low approach at 500, climbing left turn after 800," for instance.

Instrument procedures are not required to pass the DER because the assumption is they never saw the runway and don't know where the DER is. But VFR pilots don't know that. They are generally required to climb to at least 400 AGL straight out. Approach speeds may be significantly faster than VFR (I use 90 knots on a 172 or 182).
Click to expand...
 
tawood said:
I talk directly to other pilots all the time...doesn't have to be wordy, but it makes more sense because it assures that they hear you/you hear them.

Last fall I had an interesting radio exchange with a pilot at a nearby airport that ended up be "wordy", but not by my choice...I was flying to "Clare County" airport. Very close by, there is another airport, sharing the same CTAF, called "Clare Municipal". I made standard calls at 10 miles and 3 miles and heard no other traffic. As I called that I was entering the pattern "mid-field 45 downwind for runway 27 Clare County", immediately I heard another pilot respond somewhat frantically, "Cessna abc123 is also entering the midfield 45 downwind for runway 27 Clare. I don't have the Cherokee!" Because I new that Clare Municipal was nearby and because he just said "Clare", I asked the Cessna if he was at Clare Municipal or Clare County, and he just responded, "Clare airport". I asked him "which Clare airport", and his answer ("THE Clare Airport"...he emphasized "THE") made it apparent that he didn't know there was a Clare County and a Clare Municipal. Finally I had to ask him if he was landing on paved runway 27 (which would be Clare Municipal) or grass (which is Clare County). The guy finally realized he was at Clare Municipal and although I was trying to be polite, he made a point of over emphasizing the word "Municipal" by practically screaming the word "Municipal" on every subsequent call. At least I then knew where the guy was.
Click to expand...

This sounds like an excellent reason to file a NASA report. Many think of them as the proverbial Get Out Of Jail Free thing only, but they are read and often acted upon after a while.

One of those two airports could probably be bumped to the other CTAF frequency without too much trouble other than a base radio frequency change and chart updates, along with the NOTAM while its changing, if they didn't schedule it on a chart renewal date.

If not a NASA report, even just a to-the-point letter to the local FSDO explaining the confusion that occurs due to the identical names.
 
denverpilot said:
If not a NASA report, even just a to-the-point letter to the local FSDO explaining the confusion that occurs due to the identical names.
Click to expand...
Except that they're not really identical (Clare County vs. Clare Municipal) and most pilots who fly in the area regularly are VERY careful to call out the correct name. What really WOULD help is to move one of them to 122.7 (they're both currently on 122.8). But I really don't expect anything to change, it's been this way since I learned to fly. (In case anyone is wondering, these fields are in Michigan, 80D and 48D).
 
NoBShere said:
Good information in this thread. While I am a relatively low time pilot, my job has been industrial safety for almost 20 years. One thing I have noticed over the years, especially in chemical processes, is when something isn't quite right people still tend to blindly follow procedure. That can lead to problems. This thought has crossed my mind before in flying as we have the FAR AIM and ATC (at times) to follow, which can be very specific. Just because we are in "regulated" arenas doesn't mean we don't need situational awareness and need to use our judgement to make informed decisions. I know I was guilty of this at times as a student, hopefully as i continue to become a more competent or experienced pilot, I get better at understanding what the heck is going on around me. Then, we get to re-hash here for every one to share their stories and thoughts!
Click to expand...
Well put. Knowing and using established procedure is very important. But you need to know the "intent" of the law, not just the "letter" of the law. Sometimes you have to violate the letter to comply with the spirit and intent.
 
azure said:
Except that they're not really identical (Clare County vs. Clare Municipal) and most pilots who fly in the area regularly are VERY careful to call out the correct name. What really WOULD help is to move one of them to 122.7 (they're both currently on 122.8). But I really don't expect anything to change, it's been this way since I learned to fly. (In case anyone is wondering, these fields are in Michigan, 80D and 48D).
Click to expand...

In this case I would call the airport I am landing at as "Clare County 80 Delta" or Clare Municipal 48 Delta on the radio. (hope I got the airports and numbers right)
 
azure said:
Except that they're not really identical (Clare County vs. Clare Municipal) and most pilots who fly in the area regularly are VERY careful to call out the correct name. What really WOULD help is to move one of them to 122.7 (they're both currently on 122.8). But I really don't expect anything to change, it's been this way since I learned to fly. (In case anyone is wondering, these fields are in Michigan, 80D and 48D).
Click to expand...
I've never understood why they are on the same frequency...if they were near each other (as in <5 miles) I'd understand, so that you could monitor both on one frequency for traffic. But they are about 14 miles apart, which is far enough to not really effect each other air-to-air wise, but still close enough that if you are at one, radio traffic from the other sounds like it is right there with you. Not really a danger, but more of an annoyance.
 
Had my own close call yesterday.
Two planes exactly the same distance (I was 4 miles to right base, he was 4 miles to mid field entry into the pattern) flying parallel courses .5 miles apart.
The controller told us he would call our base, then vectored us both to the exact same spot for entry into the base leg.
I spotted the other plane when we were 1000' apart and realized we were probably going to make a heck of a mess in the Galleria parking lot, so I pulled up to 1,800 feet and declared a 360 degree in place.
I could see the expression on his face when he went under me.
We met up at the FBO, called the tower, and had a nice chat with the manager, who apparently was having a nice chat with the controller.
Just another day at the office.
 
What do you think about talking to another plane on the ground, towered class D airfield?

Recently, I was given taxi instructions back to parking and was advised "company waiting for you". Since I was in a different aisle, I wanted to tell them I was out of their way and they could proceed, but I wasn't sure it would be acceptable on the radio. We ended up sitting for five minutes until the other air craft taxied away before I was willing to pull into my assign tie-down.

I didn't just pull into my spot because it meant I would have to stand in front of their spinning prop if I needed to walk around the plane (for tie downs or to push into the appropriate spot if I overshot my marks).

Thoughts?
 
Justin M said:
What do you think about talking to another plane on the ground, towered class D airfield?

Recently, I was given taxi instructions back to parking and was advised "company waiting for you". Since I was in a different aisle, I wanted to tell them I was out of their way and they could proceed, but I wasn't sure it would be acceptable on the radio. We ended up sitting for five minutes until the other air craft taxied away before I was willing to pull into my assign tie-down.

I didn't just pull into my spot because it meant I would have to stand in front of their spinning prop if I needed to walk around the plane (for tie downs or to push into the appropriate spot if I overshot my marks).

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
"Cessna 12345 is clear of the alley"
 
Shepherd said:
We met up at the FBO, called the tower, and had a nice chat with the manager, who apparently was having a nice chat with the controller.
Just another day at the office.
Click to expand...

This is what you do folks. Everything is taped so they won't and can't hide anything. It could have been a trainee controller or a fully rated controller, but by calling you're able to discuss it and hopefully everyone learns from it. When I did ATC in the Air Force believe me the Chief Controller had calls, not call, calls daily.
 
Justin M said:
What do you think about talking to another plane on the ground, towered class D airfield?

Recently, I was given taxi instructions back to parking and was advised "company waiting for you". Since I was in a different aisle, I wanted to tell them I was out of their way and they could proceed, but I wasn't sure it would be acceptable on the radio. We ended up sitting for five minutes until the other air craft taxied away before I was willing to pull into my assign tie-down.

I didn't just pull into my spot because it meant I would have to stand in front of their spinning prop if I needed to walk around the plane (for tie downs or to push into the appropriate spot if I overshot my marks).

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Just tell the controller you're going elsewhere and either the controller will relay or the other aircraft will hear you, and hopefully acknowledge. Or just ask GC for permission.
 
Last edited:
Common sense is the main requirement. Do whatever it takes to resolve/remove the conflict as soon and as safely as possible. Right and wrong and time and ego mean nothing until we are all safely on the ground.
 
Justin M said:
What do you think about talking to another plane on the ground, towered class D airfield?

Recently, I was given taxi instructions back to parking and was advised "company waiting for you". Since I was in a different aisle, I wanted to tell them I was out of their way and they could proceed, but I wasn't sure it would be acceptable on the radio. We ended up sitting for five minutes until the other air craft taxied away before I was willing to pull into my assign tie-down.

I didn't just pull into my spot because it meant I would have to stand in front of their spinning prop if I needed to walk around the plane (for tie downs or to push into the appropriate spot if I overshot my marks).

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
You're not supposed to address another aircraft directly on an ATC frequency. But it's real close if you ask Ground to tell the other aircraft something. The other plane will very likely hear you. I did that recently to warn the aircraft ahead in sequence for takeoff that a seat belt was hanging out the door.
 
MAKG1 said:
You're not supposed to address another aircraft directly on an ATC frequency. But it's real close if you ask Ground to tell the other aircraft something. The other plane will very likely hear you. I did that recently to warn the aircraft ahead in sequence for takeoff that a seat belt was hanging out the door.
Click to expand...
That is what I've done in the past, I either asked to relay a msg or I just stated my situation (that affected the other aircraft) and the controller acknowledged and notified the affected aircraft. It is their field to control, I provide the information and they use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top