roncachamp
Final Approach
There's no such unwritten rule and your statements run counter to advisory publications.
Frequency change when departing D
- Thread starter zaitcev
- Start date
There's no such unwritten rule and your statements run counter to advisory publications.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
Unless he cuts in front of a radioed Citation on final. Or perhaps a sailplane with no option to go around. You guys should just stop wearing your seat belts, because you won't likely need them. Maybe cancel your homeowner's insurance, you probably won't ever file a claim. And don't do that ADS-B thing (which could eliminate the need for most radio comms, but then you'd have to have one in the cub.) It's a cheap (compared to almost anything else aviation related), easy thing that can save lives. BTW, mine transmits well enough for pattern use with the rubber duck.
I guess I err on the side of safety, for which I do not apologize. I don't like nanny-state government, but I also don't like surprises when flying.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I'm guilty, but it's not really that dumb. I sometimes make a call like that as a photo pilot: "Airport Traffic N802XX switching to approach, will be operating in the vicinity for photo work, last call..."
Sometimes you know there are still 3-4 aircraft near you and you want them to know you are switching to another frequency but still in the area.
Also, RBD is home base for me right now and they rarely give out the frequency change unless you have requested flight following in my experience.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I'm definitely ok with that one. It's always best if people know where you are. Reminds me of the time I saw a Citation go straight in at Boerne Stage a few years back and nearly run over a bright yellow biplane that was still on the runway that they just weren't looking for because the biplane's radio wasn't working right. A buddy of mine was training another pilot who had just bought that biplane I think and "felt" something wasn't right and looked over his shoulder and they exited the runway into the grass instead of the stop and goes they had been doing...Maybe it's me, but if I'm on short final, and you're on downwind, I don't need you to tell me you have the landing traffic in sight. It doesn't matter, you couldn't hit me if you tried. (But I did start off by saying I've been more grumpy lately...)Maybe I can allow this one!
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
You can also squawk VFR when you switch, and that'll give the approach controller a pretty good idea of what happened, if he's even got time to look at that point.
Lachlan
En-Route
A tourniquette is a cheap, easy thing that can save lives, too, but I would advise against using one just to err on the side of safety. Especially around one's neck.
Not everything is gonna go the way you want it, man. The whole world ain't gonna follow your rules just because that's how you want it. What about how the other guy wants it? Why aren't you following his rules and doing things the way he wants em done?
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
I never mandated my wish on anyone, we already have The Orange One as King.A tourniquette is a cheap, easy thing that can save lives, too, but I would advise against using one just to err on the side of safety. Especially around one's neck.
But if you can always "see and avoid" with 100% accuracy, and you've never, ever had a pop-up airplane in the pattern, you are better than I will ever be.
It's probably the wrong impression, but posts saying you would like to make comms mandatory sound a bit like, "I don't like nanny-state government...unless I'm the nanny."
denverpilot
Tied Down
WTF does that sentence even mean?
If the “Orange King” mandated handheld use, would you magically be happy?
That’s some real strangeness, if talking about mandating a handheld radio in all airplanes, got you thinking about the President of the United States.
How in the world is there a connection between those two things in your head?
I’m honestly fascinated to know how any adult jumps from “Lets mandate handheld radios,” to “Orange King” commentary.
That’s easily the strangest thing I’ve read all week.
I'm glad you said "all week."
My all time favorite leap into political commentary: sitting in a spa after a workout one December, I turn to the other guy there and ask whether he and his family have any plans for the holidays. It triggered a rant against me ("I'd never invite you to my home") and the other liberals who are taking his money.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
I'm only human, and I was annoyed at the comment to which I replied. I'm NOT the great mandater, so I didn't and can't mandate. But my "orange king" comment was noting that I am not in the position of power or authority to do anything. If I was, I probably would remove about 90% of the laws and regulations. But I would do so rationally (which is perhaps unlike what it happening now). Still, I I believe that using a radio at an uncontrolled field is rational, and probably 98% of us are equipped to do so, should't we all do it? The cost is cheap, the benefits great. Tell me why we should NOT announce. Because if one "cannot" (no handheld), why should anyone else be forced to? All laws and regulations should benefit all in general, but no one in particular.
And I'm outta here on this subject. I politely ask that you use your radios if you have them, and if you don't, make your pattern match the others and don't cut in front of me and then claim you didn't see me.
azure
Final Approach
I agree 100% with your last sentence. Plus, it almost goes without saying, but keep your eyes outside the cockpit and do your best to see and avoid, even if you have (and are judiciously using) a radio, because not everyone out there does.
Lachlan
En-Route
Ok, that’s just weirdness. Now you’re arguing against announcing at all in the middle of your rant about how everyone should?
If someone doesn’t see you how are they supposed to know if you’re behind them, where it’s even harder to spot traffic?
denverpilot
Tied Down
Fair enough. I dare say someone with a NEW handheld messing with it and the ridiculous adapters and connectors to get it to work in a typical radioless airplane probably spends at least the first three flights like that much LESS aware of their surroundings in the pattern than MORE aware.
Trying to figure out where to put a Velcro PTT switch, get all the adapters plugged in and somehow secured so the stupid mini jack doesn’t yank out of the handheld, strapping the handheld to something so it’s not bouncing around and making a dangerous projectile of itself in turbulence or maneuvers or trying to fall out the open door of a vintage airplane, all stuff they probably should have done on the ground, and even then, the best plan will fall apart the first time they lean forward to look under a wing and the tie wraps rip the headset off their head and knock their glasses off...
People will always find a way to distract themselves from flying in the pattern. This is just an example of how a new handheld will probably do that.
I’m sure my SA dropped 20% on the first few flights with the new Garmin in the panel. And it’s wired in and I know how to tuck the headset cord into the map pocket. Ha.
Theres’s no panacea for pattern awareness and traffic awareness. It just has to be done no matter what’s going on in the cockpit. And sometimes that’s a pain.
Sometimes the radio announcements are so bad all you really know is that there’s another airplane somewhere within 20 miles doing something. You might not even know which airport they’re talking to or about.
I don’t think any more rules are going to fix it. That’s just me. The only thing that fixes it is experience and someone caring enough to say “pay attention, or this can get you killed, seriously... whatever you’re doing over there knock it off and watch for traffic...”
Nobody goes up wanting to be a danger to themselves or others. Them not taking along a handheld in some old airplane with no electrical system at a sleepy airport is pretty low on my worry list.
I’d be happy with a few of them I’ve seen over the years, if they could have just just flown a normal pattern well enough that I could have the best chance of seeing them and predicting where they’re going to go.
We already know what an argument pattern shapes and sizes is as an argument creator here, and most here are pretty savvy, so imagine what interesting and wrong ideas are accidentally in the heads of those who don’t discuss it with anyone, ever.
I used to trust where people said they were going to go in radio calls. I got over that a loooooong time ago. They often don’t. Ha.
Nothing stops you from making more than the number of calls recommended (M-345 jet trainer). Silly not to make the ones the FAA felt strongly enough btc support to put in the Aim. https://markettabloid.com
Last edited:
Timbeck2
Final Approach
Unless the Class D airport you just left is connected to a departure control and they provided you with a transponder code, you will already be squawking 1200 so that won't trigger anything. Just switch when you get to the boundary of their airspace. Nobody will care.
MIFlyer
Pattern Altitude
I’m not a cfi...
But my understanding is that legally, if I’m on ff, I can enter a d without explicit permission or talking to tower as I’m “in two way communication with atc”
That said, I wouldn’t enter class d airspace to land without talking to that tower and ensuring they know where I am and can direct me.
My biggest frustration with ff is the delay in letting me go as I get close to my destination.
It’s a great service, but I prefer being on local freq. as I get within 10 miles of landing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
But my understanding is that legally, if I’m on ff, I can enter a d without explicit permission or talking to tower as I’m “in two way communication with atc”
That said, I wouldn’t enter class d airspace to land without talking to that tower and ensuring they know where I am and can direct me.
My biggest frustration with ff is the delay in letting me go as I get close to my destination.
It’s a great service, but I prefer being on local freq. as I get within 10 miles of landing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,183
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Gardner
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,183
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Gardner
Be assertive. Don't wait to be "let go," just tell the flight following controller that you no longer require radar services and switch to the tower.
Bob
Shawn
En-Route
Thread drift...but I used to think that as well but after a deep dive and debate into the regulations discovered that is not correct...unlike Bravo/Charlie airspace, absent a LOA which is unknown to the pilot Approach/Center does not control Delta airspace therefore does not meet the legal requirements for entry. While JO 7110.65 ATC states that it is explicitly ATC's job to coordinate transitions THROUGH that airspace, that does not apply to arrivals INTO delta.
To be legal to enter a Delta for arrivals you technically need to talking to Tower while on FF. While it is kinda a Delta Bravo move and not all that common, pilots have indeed been given PD's for late handoffs inside Delta even while on FF.
See link here for discussion:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...ef-councils-letter-for-interpretation.110328/
deyoung
Line Up and Wait
I just request it if they're late. "Center, Bugsmasher 123, have Podunk Field in sight, request frequency change." I pretty much always get it immediately.
Shawn
En-Route
Yup..."Approach, Sklylane 345, Field in sight" is the universal polite "hey NumNuts...did you forget about me for a handoff?" or "Hey, I want a frequency change!" call
roncachamp
Final Approach
So as you get within ten miles of landing bid the radar controller goodbye and call the tower.
MIFlyer
Pattern Altitude
yep, if they let you go...
I've had them hold me on freq for departing 121 traffic a little longer than I liked and sometimes it's hard to break in, so I underutilize FF
roncachamp
Final Approach
They can't hold you on frequency. You're operating VFR in airspace that does not require you to be on that frequency.
Shawn
En-Route
Or just ask for a handoff to tower...no need to cancel then cold call tower while on FF.
roncachamp
Final Approach
How would that alter your initial call to the tower?
While it's not SUPPOSED to happen, several times I've been pretty much sent into the class D without coordination. Now I ask when I'm bearing down on the class D boundaries. More often than not I'm just told "contact tower." No "handoff."
When I apologized for the short notice for the late switch, the comment from the tower controller was "That's why they call them enroute controllers."
When I apologized for the short notice for the late switch, the comment from the tower controller was "That's why they call them enroute controllers."
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,902
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I think that pilots and controllers are equally ignorant of these nuances. I was flying VFR to KRAP from the north and called Ellsworth Approach. They sent me direct to KRAP, which took me through the Ellsworth Class D airspace. I asked if I was cleared through the Ellsworth Class Delta and Approach said I was, but it was clear to me that they had assumed that I would assume that clearance. Now, I'm glad that I asked.
I don't think that's the best idea. I could be wrong, of course...it happens at least daily. But if you are getting radar services with a discrete transponder code and switch to 1200 while you change frequencies without telling the radar controller, who we assume to be very busy because the reason you did it that way was because you couldn't get a word in edgewise on frequency, isn't the controller going to have an increased workload trying to figure out what happened to the radar-identified contact, or even freak out that the contact was lost? Maybe Mode S and/or ADS-B alleviates that issue by giving the radar controller continuity between your discrete code and 1200, but I wouldn't assume that. I think it's better to keep the discrete code. That way, the people following your flight on radar will know that you either landed or, at worst, crashed really close to the airport and they don't have to send SAR looking for your wreckage near where you changed transponder codes.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
True, but if the controller says, "Stay with me until we get you past the one o'clock traffic," that's an offer I'm not likely to pass up.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,902
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
On the NORDO thing, many things increase safety of flight. Listening on the radio is one of them. Talking clearly on the radio is another. But the radio isn't infallible. Sometimes the pilot you're listening to is, to put it kindly, unclear about where he is or what he's doing. Sometimes you are the only radio-equipped plane in a 50-mile radius and making 100 calls, no matter how helpful they would be if someone operating in the vicinity heard them, is a net loss of safety because the only people who will hear you are at other airports with a busier pattern. You should use all of the tools at your disposal to make your flight safe. But you should not blindly apply every tool at your disposal for no reason other than that you have it. Not everything is a nail, so don't just hit everything in sight with a hammer.
Sometimes you are NORDO even when you have a radio in the plane. The handheld that we use in the Cub, even with an external antenna, is great if I am on downwind and you are on final. But if I'm 5 miles out and you're on the runway, at least one of us won't be hearing the other. ADS-B has poor coverage at low altitudes and has no way to detect or correct lost packets. Your eyes will easily spot some planes and easily lose others in the ground clutter. If you rely too much on any one thing, you will eventually be left wanting.
I like flying with a radio. I like it when other people have radios and use them properly. But I don't bet my life on everyone having perfect radio reception and phraseology. Even if we had a regulation that made radio usage mandatory at all airports, I still would not make that bet. We have regulations that require everyone to drive in their designated lane at a safe speed with a safe lookout, not texting or otherwise distracted, etc., and yet I regularly have to take the shoulder because a semi truck is coming head-on at me about 4 feet into my lane with his eyes off the road.
Sometimes you are NORDO even when you have a radio in the plane. The handheld that we use in the Cub, even with an external antenna, is great if I am on downwind and you are on final. But if I'm 5 miles out and you're on the runway, at least one of us won't be hearing the other. ADS-B has poor coverage at low altitudes and has no way to detect or correct lost packets. Your eyes will easily spot some planes and easily lose others in the ground clutter. If you rely too much on any one thing, you will eventually be left wanting.
I like flying with a radio. I like it when other people have radios and use them properly. But I don't bet my life on everyone having perfect radio reception and phraseology. Even if we had a regulation that made radio usage mandatory at all airports, I still would not make that bet. We have regulations that require everyone to drive in their designated lane at a safe speed with a safe lookout, not texting or otherwise distracted, etc., and yet I regularly have to take the shoulder because a semi truck is coming head-on at me about 4 feet into my lane with his eyes off the road.
roncachamp
Final Approach
You may choose to do that but the radar controller cannot require you to do that.
Shawn
En-Route
Then why are you even on FF then Cobwboy? I get that scenario all the time...I am inbound and he has a plane outbound that he is expecting a handoff from tower from that he is not talking to yet...his job is os to help keeping us from smacking into each other and wants me to stay with him to ensure that will not happen.
If tower has an issue of PV due to a SPECIFIC instruction from ATC, they can take it up with Approach.
I seriously don't get the "I'm not gonna cuz I don't have to" mentality. FF is a two way street.
deyoung
Line Up and Wait
Are you sure about that?
I ask because, well, I think you're mistaken.
You're not required to be talking to ATC when VFR, for the most part, but if you choose to be in communication with them (as in this example) then you are actually required to follow their instructions. Absent an emergency, of course. At least that's been my understanding.
JO 7110.65 is not a regulation, and even as guidance, its opening paragraphs make it clear that its intended audience is controllers. Consequently, it does not become legally binding on pilots until a controller gives a pilot a clearance or instruction based on it, which triggers 91.123(a) and/or (b).
"Technically," there was no clear consensus in that thread. I'm more persuaded by the last two posts in it, the second of which was written by one of our attorney members:
By the way, another problem with taking "the" too literally in "the ATC facility...providing air traffic services" is that airports with parallel runways often have more than one tower controller, and there is no charted boundary between their areas of jurisdiction.
I'm not saying that querying the controller is a bad idea if the frequency is not too congested, but I'm not going to worry about enforcement actions for late handoffs from approach controllers to class D tower controllers until I start hearing about such enforcement actions being pursued by the FAA.
Are you sure about that?
I ask because, well, I think you're mistaken.
Roncachamp has often argued for exceptions to the 91.123(b) requirement to obey ATC instructions.
One exception that I can think of is that when you are faced with violating one or the other of two conflicting regulations, you have to choose which one to violate. So if you believe that a controller has the authority to require the pilot of a VFR aircraft to remain on frequency when not otherwise required to do so, and if you further believe that entering class D airspace while in contact with approach control is a violation, then you have a dilemma. The best way to resolve that delemma, IMO, in order of priority, is to take whatever action is most likely to (1) result in a safe outcome of the flight, or (2) avoid an enforcement action.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you're only on flight following, the controller doesn't need to "figure out what happened to the radar-identified contact." SAR is not initiated if you're on flight following and you drop off the radar. They only have to figure that stuff out if you're IFR. And if ATC is that busy, they're not going to try to figure it out - They're going to be thankful that they have one less airplane to work, and if they're really worried about you, they'll call and ask the tower if you landed *AFTER* they're not busy any more.
Maybe some of the controllers could pipe up here and say whether they would actually notice your target going to 1200, or how they feel about this.
roncachamp
Final Approach
For traffic advisories and safety alerts.
The radar controller should advise the VFR aircraft of the departing traffic and ship it to tower.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Yes.
I ask because, well, I think you're mistaken.
I'm not mistaken, your understanding is incorrect.