Non-towered Airport Line up and Wait

I think under the circumstances described I would have landed as the OP did and just gone about my business. It would have been different if I'd just come in and noticed an airplane sitting there at the other end of the runway. That would have given me the shivers, you never know what he's going to do. Or if it was a short runway (short as in 2000 feet or less). But here the other pilot announced a LUAW and the runway was 4000 feet. I agree it's bad form and stupid of him to do it, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's likely stupid enough to start rolling before I'm off the runway. He's watching me come in and can see everything I'm doing. No cause for concern from my standpoint.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I can kind of see how you might go ahead and play along since you were so close to being committed to landing, but I agree with you that in hindsight you should have gone around, if for no other reason to let the other pilot know that it was sort of a jackass move.
Click to expand...

You can't fix stupid! He would not have connected the go around with his "blankety-blankety" ass being on the runway...:idea:
 
ebetancourt said:
OP doesn't say what type AC he was flying, so don't know the landing roll. LUAW is stupid at a pilot controlled field but wouldn't have gone around in anything I'm currently flying.
Click to expand...

Which pilot "controls" a "pilot controlled field"?
 
azure said:
I think under the circumstances described I would have landed as the OP did and just gone about my business. It would have been different if I'd just come in and noticed an airplane sitting there at the other end of the runway. That would have given me the shivers, you never know what he's going to do. Or if it was a short runway (short as in 2000 feet or less). But here the other pilot announced a LUAW and the runway was 4000 feet. I agree it's bad form and stupid of him to do it, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's likely stupid enough to start rolling before I'm off the runway. He's watching me come in and can see everything I'm doing. No cause for concern from my standpoint.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own risk tolerance, but regarding jumping to conclusions, I wouldn't make any assumptions at all. I wouldn't assume that he's smart. I wouldn't assume that he's stupid. I wouldn't assume that he has me in sight instead of some other aircraft. I wouldn't assume that he doesn't. I wouldn't assume that my brakes will fail. I wouldn't assume that they won't. I wouldn't assume that an unexpected tailwind might come up. I wouldn't assume that it won't. The only action that takes into account all those possibilities is a go around.
 
Palmpilot said:
Everyone has their own risk tolerance, but regarding jumping to conclusions, I wouldn't make any assumptions at all. I wouldn't assume that he's smart. I wouldn't assume that he's stupid. I wouldn't assume that he has me in sight instead of some other aircraft. I wouldn't assume that he doesn't. I wouldn't assume that my brakes will fail. I wouldn't assume that they won't. I wouldn't assume that an unexpected tailwind might come up. I wouldn't assume that it won't. The only action that takes into account all those possibilities is a go around.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, not sure if you ever studied either stats, or logic in school.

Your commentary seems to indicate that by making an 'assumption' in both directions that the probabilities are some kind of equality. I'm now going to give a SWAG that the probabilities of a complete brake failure in a GA plane are < 0.000001 (~1 in 100,000) applications, I am going to 'assume' that my brakes will work.

Next, if your tautology is to be expanded to the logical conclusion, you've decided to power up and go around. Might as well use the same logic on the assumption that power will be avail, flaps will retract right, you won't stall it, etc. There are risks with each decision, and they are quantifiable. The question I have is which is safer?

Since the OP stated the plane made a call that they would 'line up and wait', that tells me they know there is traffic coming, otherwise they would just announce taking off. Again, I'm going to assume that the guy who said he would wait - will actually wait. My assumption is based on his statement over the radio. So, I'm in the final throws of landing, I'm going to land, and take the energy out of the equation. Worst case, I'd rather hit somone at 20-30MPH on the ground, than risk hitting them at 60MPH in the air.

So, I would say your go around theory being safer has some holes in it.
 
docmirror said:
Hmmmm, not sure if you ever studied either stats, or logic in school.

Your commentary seems to indicate that by making an 'assumption' in both directions that the probabilities are some kind of equality. I'm now going to give a SWAG that the probabilities of a complete brake failure in a GA plane are < 0.000001 (~1 in 100,000) applications, I am going to 'assume' that my brakes will work.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that the probabilities for each alternative were equal. I certainly don't consider the probability that the brakes will work to be equal to the probability that they will fail. The point I was trying to make is that I wouldn't feel comfortable assuming that things would work out as I expected in that situation. Brake failure was just an example of the many ways that something could go wrong. (I did experience brake failure once, but fortunately that didn't occur until after I taxied off the runway.)

Next, if your tautology is to be expanded to the logical conclusion, you've decided to power up and go around.
Click to expand...

I plead guilty to the unnecessary repetition!

Might as well use the same logic on the assumption that power will be avail, flaps will retract right, you won't stall it, etc. There are risks with each decision, and they are quantifiable. The question I have is which is safer?

Since the OP stated the plane made a call that they would 'line up and wait', that tells me they know there is traffic coming, otherwise they would just announce taking off. Again, I'm going to assume that the guy who said he would wait - will actually wait. My assumption is based on his statement over the radio.
Click to expand...

I have had more landings go not as well as I expected for whatever reason, and seen more instances of people not doing what they said they would, than I have had engine or flap failures, or stalls during a go around.

So, I'm in the final throws of landing, I'm going to land, and take the energy out of the equation. Worst case, I'd rather hit somone at 20-30MPH on the ground, than risk hitting them at 60MPH in the air.
Click to expand...

The planes I fly are pretty maneuverable. I have a hard time seeing how the guy could get airborne fast enough to preclude my avoiding him.

So, I would say your go around theory being safer has some holes in it.
Click to expand...

Everyone has to assess the risks for themselves - it's part of being pilot in command. I was just saying what I would do, and why.
 
I guess I am in the camp of just landing it and taking my sweet time clearing the runway. He said he saw the traffic so more than likely not going anywhere. 4,000 is a lot of room to land. I would be more afraid of the engine going silent while attempting the go around and then hitting him at a higher speed or landing off runway than I would be of hitting him on a normal landing. No matter how you look at it he raised your risk level without anything in return. I would do what I could to help him regret that decision.
 
Palmpilot said:
Which pilot "controls" a "pilot controlled field"?
Click to expand...
That's what one gets when creating politically correct terms. Some are worse than the one being corrected.

I get the desire to avoid the use of the term "uncontrolled". Ir sounds incredibly dangerous to the general public and GA has more than enough enemies (I personally prefer "nontowered" as both neutral and accurately descriptive). But "pilot controlled" isn't even accurate and, as you show, takes only one simple question to fall apart as an indicator of safety.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's what one gets when creating politically correct terms. Some are worse than the one being corrected.

I get the desire to avoid the use of the term "uncontrolled". Ir sounds incredibly dangerous to the general public and GA has more than enough enemies (I personally prefer "nontowered" as both neutral and accurately descriptive). But "pilot controlled" isn't even accurate and, as you show, takes only one simple question to fall apart as an indicator of safety.
Click to expand...

I certainly was not trying to be PC. I happen to think "pilot controlled" is more accurate; uncontrolled implies random in my mind. Typical pattern is not random and there are a few regulations involved.

But I'm not hung up on any term. I don't really care what anyone calls it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
With or without opposite direction traffic on final, being a sitting duck on runway with no Tower and no requirement to use a radio, seems like a particularly bad "I trust others to keep me safe" choice.

Can't see that bozo coming from behind who is so focused on his own landed he doesn't see you and betting the opposite direction traffic won't have a floating problem, doesn't appear to be conducive to a long flying career.
Click to expand...
airplanes have been told to taxi into position and hold at night and forgotten about and hit...
you're spot on, bad idea.
 
Pilot controlled is a terrible term. Last thing we need is hobby pilots thinking they control something outside their airplane. I say we call them Free Space airports. Remember people are free to fly things there that won't show up on your TV.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's what one gets when creating politically correct terms. Some are worse than the one being corrected.

I get the desire to avoid the use of the term "uncontrolled". Ir sounds incredibly dangerous to the general public and GA has more than enough enemies (I personally prefer "nontowered" as both neutral and accurately descriptive). But "pilot controlled" isn't even accurate and, as you show, takes only one simple question to fall apart as an indicator of safety.
Click to expand...

"Non-towered" doesn't bother my BS meter at all.
 
Palmpilot said:
"Non-towered" doesn't bother my BS meter at all.
Click to expand...

What do you do about part time or closed towers?

Palo Alto is uncontrolled at night (Class G). But it definitely has a tower.

South Lake Tahoe has a tower, but it's been closed for years (Class E). And it's still "controlled airspace."
 
The AIM defines an airport without an operational control tower as a "non towered airport." Why wouldn't one just call it that?
 
Sac Arrow said:
The AIM defines an airport without an operational control tower as a "non towered airport." Why wouldn't one just call it that?
Click to expand...

You've taken all the drayma and argument out of the process. What's the fun in that? ;)
 
Nah... I grew up with uncontrolled. The term is accurate, and I'm sticking with it..
 
ClimbnSink said:
Pilot controlled is a terrible term. Last thing we need is hobby pilots thinking they control something outside their airplane. I say we call them Free Space airports. Remember people are free to fly things there that won't show up on your TV.
Click to expand...

Curious, what's your definition of a "hobby pilot?" I suspect most of us here would fit some definition of that term.
 
jasstech said:
I guess I am in the camp of just landing it and taking my sweet time clearing the runway. He said he saw the traffic so more than likely not going anywhere. 4,000 is a lot of room to land. I would be more afraid of the engine going silent while attempting the go around and then hitting him at a higher speed or landing off runway than I would be of hitting him on a normal landing. No matter how you look at it he raised your risk level without anything in return. I would do what I could to help him regret that decision.
Click to expand...

Land, roll all the way down near him, then announce you're taxiing back since an airplane is blocking your exit. I'm in the camp of probably going around as well.
 
48dodge said:
Land, roll all the way down near him, then announce you're taxiing back since an airplane is blocking your exit. I'm in the camp of probably going around as well.
Click to expand...

Only problem I see is that if you blow a 180 and back taxi, the jackass may start his takeoff roll behind you!!
 
Sounds like a regular Saturday EEA at some airport in Texas, I got a old guy landing opposite direction same runaway on a rv6! Never made a call, I was in the Malibu that fat ass don't like quick goes around, was not fun, we got a hot discussion In the restaurant he was 80 yrs old and for what I got he can care less about his life. Sad to say but is many old timers doing crap they use to do 50 years ago and because they been in the same airport 50 yrs they have some sense off entailment, Keep eyes open and wen in doubt balls to the walls and go around.
 
Also is a guy with a Cessna 337 no license no training he just flown in Vietnam as crew man and never flown again, he as been seeing high speed taxing on runaway, he is 78 yrs old, he runs those engines wide open on brakes, and screw all over the airport, we actually put a phone call on this mater, before he kill some one or himself.
 
Commanche flyer, what makes you think only old guys have a lock on being an idiot? I am 79, have never bent an airplane or rule as far as I know but have seen younger guys (and older guys) do stupid stuff.
 
jsterner said:
Commanche flyer, what makes you think only old guys have a lock on being an idiot? I am 79, have never bent an airplane or rule as far as I know but have seen younger guys (and older guys) do stupid stuff.
Click to expand...

Not saying old guys are idiots, saying old timers at some airports think they own the airport and airspace around it, and that's when gets dangerous, not trying to offend you or picking a fight, you can be old timer at your airport and be 50 thinking you know all, typical guy over radio questioning your traffic pattern. Don't take it personal, my best pal is 78 ATP pilot only guy ever flights my planes.
And you are right many young guns being top guns.
Point is keep eyes open.
 
Ugghhh.... a lot of passive-aggressive responses, and a wrong turn at KABQ.

Do what keeps you safe. If you are second guessing your actions, then fix that next time. My guess is that this is a one-time occurrence. Maybe not.

I had a Cub call me up while I was back-taxiing to the departure end, asking me if I minded that he take-off with an intersection departure. This is non-towered, uncontrolled, free airspace, whatever airport. I said go ahead. Thank god I lived!
 
I don't like line up and wait at controller airports. At pilot controlled, I check the pattern, the departure end, announce my intentions, and roll out on my way to take off. And isn't there a FAA rule about two aircraft on the runway at a time? I don't want to get busted, even if a controller give me the word.
 
Sac Arrow said:
The AIM defines an airport without an operational control tower as a "non towered airport." Why wouldn't one just call it that?
Click to expand...

Because it's been called uncontrolled for a lot longer than some people on these boards have been alive. Why try to change what's not broken.
 
denverpilot said:
Might get the point across to the interlocutor as to how stupid sitting there is, if your called go-around (silently) didn't result in a very good climb rate. Just enough to clear him.
Click to expand...

There's a mature response, not.:no:
 
Witmo said:
There's a mature response, not.:no:
Click to expand...


What's wrong with it? Dumbasses often need things demonstrated to them to get things. I'm not talking low enough to pose any more of a hazard than they already created.

Offset a little to the side, hope you don't lose an engine, because dip-weed is sitting in your only "out" anyway, and more so than being low, just be loud.

Highly unlikely he has enough brain cells to get it, but one can always hope.
 
denverpilot said:
What's wrong with it? Dumbasses often need things demonstrated to them to get things. I'm not talking low enough to pose any more of a hazard than they already created.

Offset a little to the side, hope you don't lose an engine, because dip-weed is sitting in your only "out" anyway, and more so than being low, just be loud.

Highly unlikely he has enough brain cells to get it, but one can always hope.
Click to expand...

I'm going to start runway sharing at uncontrolled airports, just for fun.
 
denverpilot said:
What's wrong with it? Dumbasses often need things demonstrated to them to get things. I'm not talking low enough to pose any more of a hazard than they already created.

Offset a little to the side, hope you don't lose an engine, because dip-weed is sitting in your only "out" anyway, and more so than being low, just be loud.

Highly unlikely he has enough brain cells to get it, but one can always hope.
Click to expand...

If you need someone to tell you what's wrong with it, I doubt my explaining how immature and stupid it is would have any impact. Typical road rage type reaction and equally stupid.
 
Last edited:
Witmo said:
If you need someone to tell you what's wrong with it, I doubt my explaining how immature and stupid it is would have any impact. Typical road rage type reaction and equally stupid.
Click to expand...


Pfft. Road rage reactions are dangerous. You're traveling far closer usually they involve doing stupid stuff that makes a collision inevitable without someone changing the scenario. I have suggested no such thing.

Passing overhead while accelerating was what was going to happen in this scenario anyway.

Doing it lower will simply mean you've accelerated more, and is still predicated on knowing if that's the best option for any "outs", other than the runway that the dip**** is sitting on, is still an option if flown differently.

If you need Vy to hop the fence into the field beyond, of course you don't do it.

But if dip**** sitting on the runway took your only "out" away from you, it makes no operational difference whatsoever.

You're making dumb assumptions that PIC doesn't come first.
 
denverpilot said:
Might get the point across to the interlocutor as to how stupid sitting there is, if your called go-around (silently) didn't result in a very good climb rate. Just enough to clear him.
Click to expand...

Then you said

I'm not talking low enough to pose any more of a hazard than they already created.
Click to expand...

So, I'm a bit confused.... Although I agree he is a dip*** in the first place.
 
I'll fess up, i just did this a few weeks ago, rolled onto the runway and didnt notice the plane on short final till i was right smack in front of him. I just kept rolling into the grass on the other side and stopped. Apologized on the radio after he was down and slow. We all make boneheaded moves sometimes. Just do whatever you can to deconflict and then move on with the rest of your day.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top