Perhaps a better answer IMO is to simply continue to make standard pattern calls when the ATITPPA guy calls up rather than specifically addressing or ignoring the call.I can't think of any reason NOT to answer such a transmission. Seems like some sort of misplaced pride - or something - getting in the way of a position report that could help the guy or gal out - in spite of it being a "stupid request".
I'm saying he did announce his position, but asking for my position doesn't help him at all. Say he's 10 to the NW, entering on a 45 for left downwind 35. I'm already on downwind, I just made that call probably before he switched to the frequency and announced. I know he's 10 miles out and I'm already on downwind, he doesn't need to know where I'm at, I'm no factor for him. I'll just make my call when I turn base.Well at that point you know he is out there somewhere, you could ask him for his position that he didn't provide vs. waiting to reach your base turn.
Perhaps a better answer IMO is to simply continue to make standard pattern calls when the ATITPPA guy calls up rather than specifically addressing or ignoring the call.
People buzzing around without a radio are bad for aviation and dangers to everyone in the air. Have the human decency to have a radio when flying around the pattern.
Again, the FAA says you should NEVER make this call. Stop making the call and then telling others how we should respond. I don't need to be courteous to someone who doesn't know what they're doing and is not following the rules. Me telling him where I am in the scenario I gave gives him no useful data. If I'm on crosswind, turning downwind, that call may mean something to my safety and his and I'll make my normal call. It's called using judgement and I guess I have a different opinion than you do. I have a low tolerance for people wasting time on the radio when we are talked over on almost every call. Make the correct calls and think about what you're going to say first so you don't stumble through it.Perhaps a better answer IMO is to simply continue to make standard pattern calls when the ATITPPA guy calls up rather than specifically addressing or ignoring the call.
Again, the FAA says you should NEVER make this call. .
Have to disagree. I know handhelds are much better now but see and avoid is important too. If I owned a Cub I probably wouldn't bother w/ a radio. Hey maybe that's why Cubs are all yellow!
One thing I don't understand: everytime this is brought up people say "see and avoid is important" as if people with radios don't do see and avoid. Of course you do. And you should also be on the radio. Having a radio is MUCH better and safer than just relying on see and avoid.
folks, many of these mid-airs occur with ATC directing the circus....and everyone "is" talking.
Uh dude, you do realize that I am strongly opposed to the ATITPPA call, right?Again, the FAA says you should NEVER make this call. Stop making the call and then telling others how we should respond. I don't need to be courteous to someone who doesn't know what they're doing and is not following the rules. Me telling him where I am in the scenario I gave gives him no useful data. If I'm on crosswind, turning downwind, that call may mean something to my safety and his and I'll make my normal call. It's called using judgement and I guess I have a different opinion than you do. I have a low tolerance for people wasting time on the radio when we are talked over on almost every call. Make the correct calls and think about what you're going to say first so you don't stumble through it.
Maybe some anti-authority attitude and some looking around outside would solve more problems.folks, many of these mid-airs occur with ATC directing the circus....and everyone "is" talking.
LOL, misread that one! I see now you were saying to keep making standard radio calls, which is what I'm doing too. I just read the part where you said "specifically ignoring the call". I'm not ignoring them, but not specifically answering them either!Uh dude, you do realize that I am strongly opposed to the ATITPPA call, right? Just want you make sure since you quoted me and then went off in a rant. I'm NOT the one making that stupid call.
I understand your open tower comment was most likely sarcasm, however, we've got some low timers here.Any other traffic please advise...... when ever I hear that and there is no response, I am pretty sure that person is head down and no longer looking for traffic.
Stick to open control towers and you will not have a problem.
What bothers me most if private pilot types that give their life story on the radio, several times and not giving others a chance to reply...
Not saying it's the best choice but when I'm monitoring CTAF and hear lots of traffic at the airport I'll cancel early if it's good vfr or tell the controller I have to switch if it's too much to effectively work two com's at once. To me it's more important to work myself into the traffic flow than to stay with the controller.For those on IFR, sometimes we don't get turned loose until well within 10 miles, I try to listen on 2nd radio, but multitasking radios is not easy when they're busy.
Wonder if the proximity of their airframes and antenna positions "shaped" the propogation of their signals, or they had the weird bad luck to step on each other's call simultaneousky, maybe two or three times? VHF is odd - after being taught vegetation was RF transparent, I watched a single tree, swaying in a strong wind, at Andrews AFB, positioned between me and the VOR. The CDI was moving in sync with the tree's movement. . .I don't know why I didn't think of another accident before now. In 2004, in Georgetown, TX (KGTU) we had a collision of two landing planes. Everyone survived as it was on short final, but it was scary. Both pilots claimed to be on CTAF and broadcasting their positions, but neither heard the other. One witness who was taxiing heard no calls, one heard one plane say "short final" but wasn't sure which plane. Both radios were set to CTAF 123.00 when the NTSB checked them. One plane was a Diamond making a standard pattern, the other was a Giles 202 doing a landing style a lot of aerobatic pilots use, a slipping 180 from downwind. He landed on top of the Diamond NTSB: FTW04LA123A We lost the pilot of the Giles last year when his tail came off of a another Giles.
People buzzing around without ADSB in & out...People buzzing around without a radio are bad for aviation and dangers to everyone in the air.
People buzzing around without ADSB in & out...
People buzzing around without TCAS...
People buzzing around without an air-to-air radar...
People buzzing around without NCTR...
Where does it end?
Nauga,
just a workman with tools
I don't think so, not foolish or inconsiderate. Higher risk? Sure, concur. . . Might be guys who accept that risk, and are neither foolish or inconsiderate in their own eyes. And it's a risk you have to accept, as well, if you want to play, since it's within the rules. Your alternative is to stick with towered airports, or take up oragami or spoon collecting. . . or lobby for a rules change.I'm not real concerned about where it ends, but it sure as hell should start with a radio. Buzzing around the pattern without a radio is foolish and inconsiderate to everyone in aviation.
Perhaps a better answer IMO is to simply continue to make standard pattern calls when the ATITPPA guy calls up rather than specifically addressing or ignoring the call.
For those on IFR, sometimes we don't get turned loose until well within 10 miles, I try to listen on 2nd radio, but multitasking radios is not easy when they're busy.
So, point of that story is: you can be talking to all the right people and doing things "by the book" and human or surveillance errors can compound to create an incident.