GreatLakesFlying
Pre-takeoff checklist
OK, I need to vent some steam about the following.
Last Saturday, after the mini-fly-in at KJVL, my friend and I got into the Archer to fly back to 06C. We asked for FF, were handed off to RDF approach, and finally to Chicago approach. There was another aircraft on FF at the time, approaching 06C from the northeast.
About 10-11 miles out of 06C ATC terminated radar services for both of us, and directed us to CTAF. By that time I had obtained AWOS and I was planning to overfly the field and enter left downwind for 29.
I announced position and intentions on CTAF and then the other aircraft did the same, only he said he was planning to enter left base for 11. I made a note to keep an extra eye out for him and I announced my next position, overflying midfield 1800 for left crosswind 29. The other guy says he is about to enter left base for 11.
Someone on the ground about to depart on rwy 29, told the other aircraft that winds favor 29. OK, says the other guy, and announces he will be joining left downwind 29. While he is on 11's left base, ie, he will be flying across the departure path of 29, with traffic taking off!
At that point I am in my teardrop, I have the other guy in sight, my copilot keeps an eye on him, we are safely separated, I am talking to him (I'll be #2 for 29), and we are fine.
But I can't help thinking about it: how safe was it for him to cut in front of the active runway's departure path? Maybe he was startled when he was told that 29 was the active runway and he made a last-minute decision to join the downwind from his position. Would it have been better if he entered a right 360-ish, to overfly the field and do a teardrop entry into the left downwind for 29? Did he not copy AWOS reporting 30007KT? (Which, really is closer to 30012KT because at 06C I think the anemometer is in the basement).
Anyway, not a big issue for me as I was aware of the other aircraft's position and trajectory and I was talking with him -- he was actually very nice -- but I got a bit concerned about the departing traffic at the time.
Last Saturday, after the mini-fly-in at KJVL, my friend and I got into the Archer to fly back to 06C. We asked for FF, were handed off to RDF approach, and finally to Chicago approach. There was another aircraft on FF at the time, approaching 06C from the northeast.
About 10-11 miles out of 06C ATC terminated radar services for both of us, and directed us to CTAF. By that time I had obtained AWOS and I was planning to overfly the field and enter left downwind for 29.
I announced position and intentions on CTAF and then the other aircraft did the same, only he said he was planning to enter left base for 11. I made a note to keep an extra eye out for him and I announced my next position, overflying midfield 1800 for left crosswind 29. The other guy says he is about to enter left base for 11.
Someone on the ground about to depart on rwy 29, told the other aircraft that winds favor 29. OK, says the other guy, and announces he will be joining left downwind 29. While he is on 11's left base, ie, he will be flying across the departure path of 29, with traffic taking off!
At that point I am in my teardrop, I have the other guy in sight, my copilot keeps an eye on him, we are safely separated, I am talking to him (I'll be #2 for 29), and we are fine.
But I can't help thinking about it: how safe was it for him to cut in front of the active runway's departure path? Maybe he was startled when he was told that 29 was the active runway and he made a last-minute decision to join the downwind from his position. Would it have been better if he entered a right 360-ish, to overfly the field and do a teardrop entry into the left downwind for 29? Did he not copy AWOS reporting 30007KT? (Which, really is closer to 30012KT because at 06C I think the anemometer is in the basement).
Anyway, not a big issue for me as I was aware of the other aircraft's position and trajectory and I was talking with him -- he was actually very nice -- but I got a bit concerned about the departing traffic at the time.
Last edited: