NORDO - Wrong runway

[Lachlan]

Show me an official FAA publication stating "Les Schwab" as a reporting point at Prineville. It's not on the sectional, it's not in the Chart Supplement, it's not on the airports 'official' web page. For the purposes of a transient pilot, it's simply made up. Equally useless would be 'facebook'. On the other hand you say '5 north' and I can glance at even a paper sectional and have a pretty good idea of where a plane is.

But how many pilots out there are extremely good at estimating distances like that? And how many are stationary after that specific distance announcement? By the time you even start scanning 5 miles north, they’re gone from there. Also, I have flown out of KAPA soooooo many times and heard the tower tell aircraft to “report over IKEA.” Never once, ever, heard a hardass pilot tell the tower “unable, because IKEA ain’t on the chart.” Just sayin, because there ain’t no place on a chart designated as “5 miles north,” either. Think about it.

 

[Lindberg]

1. If we're honest, there's not a pilot here who hasn't been told of other aircraft in the area, looked for it intently but just couldn't find it. And that's when we're told that it's there. See and avoid ...it's just simply one more tool in a toolbelt.

Wrong. See and avoid is not just another tool in the toolbox, it's the rule! If I'm warned of traffic and I don't see him, I'm not going to rely on the radio or "fish finder" to prevent a collision, I'm going to rely on my eyes and my ability to be somewhere else.

 

[MauleSkinner]

and BTW Tom, when I say NORDO I mean not having a radio so I'm not including those who have a radio but don't talk on it.

I don’t get my undies in a twist about the ones who don’t talk on it so much as the ones who don’t listen on it.

I was doing touch and goes, making position reports, with a couple other airplanes one day, and when somebody new joined in, the instructor in one of the other airplanes warned him about the “red and white NORDO taildragger” in the pattern (me). For the remainder of the pattern work, I identified myself in position reports as “NORDO taildragger”. I heard through the grapevine that the instructor was quite offended at that.

 

[Ravioli]

"catch a NORDO by the tail, if it hollers let it go"?

 

[Ghery]

I've re-read the thread, and think that the guy doing touch and go's took off into traffic on final.
When doing touch and go's you do not automatically have the right of way to take off.

It's up to you to insure the departure route is clear.

The other question that I haven't seen "answered" here relates to the OP and the suggestion that he not take off if he had seen the Bo on short final while he was still on the ground. So, now what does he do? He's on the runway, he can't take off because landing traffic has the right of way once he's airborne, he has the right of way at this instant because he's on the runway and the Bo isn't, but the Bo will hit him if he (the Bo) continues his approach and lands without seeing the OP already on the runway. I know what I'd do if necessary - close the throttle and head for the weeds as that will hurt less than a head-on collision. NORDO or no-NORDO, it's an uncontrolled field. The use of a radio isn't required and the Bo either wasn't using one, or was on the wrong frequency. So, again, what "should" the OP have done if he had seen the Bo prior to doing the "Go" of the T&G?

 

[Sundancer]

1. If we're honest, there's not a pilot here who hasn't been told of other aircraft in the area, looked for it intently but just couldn't find it. And that's when we're told that it's there. See and avoid ...it's just simply one more tool in a toolbelt.

2. You know a better tool? (and I'm not talking Tim here ) A RADIO!

3. I've got no beef with NORDO. I can work with them, don't argue with them, even like one or two of them. And I understand how they feel on a lazy Sunday at a lonely airport that might see a plane or two that day. But it's not for me. I want every opportunity to avoid a collision.

4. The big sky theory holds water. There aren't many collisions because it really is a big sky, and when you're talking traffic patterns most (*cough* some) of us are able use common sense on picking the right runway.

A little off-topic...I hadn't had my cert. long when I flew to an unfamiliar airport in another state. Picked up the weather, chose the runway into the wind, made the radio calls, entered the pattern. I'm on final when a NORDO plane pulls onto the other end of the runway. I go around, come in, and the guy's just doing some T&Gs and when he comes in he gives me an ass chewing. "Unless the wind is strong, we don't back-taxi around here! It clogs up the runway!" Being a new pilot I thought it was just one more thing I didn't know about. It was months before I figured out that particular airport must have just been filled with morons. I haven't been back there since, but every now and then I wonder if they've ever had any accidents because of that.

Heard similar stories for years, and probably most of us have encountered a "local" procedure "everyone knows"; I witnessed two ladies shut down an ass-chewing at KANP (Annapolis MD) some years back - they we're in from CA, in a Cardinal, and had done/omitted/missed something the local said "everyone knows" - she told him put it in the AFD or a NOTAM. Or F**k off. Said she had failed Mind Reading 101 and wasn't going to re-take the class. And clearly, "everyone" didn't know it, so he was full of it.

 

[Kritchlow]

Wrong. See and avoid is not just another tool in the toolbox, it's the rule! If I'm warned of traffic and I don't see him, I'm not going to rely on the radio or "fish finder" to prevent a collision, I'm going to rely on my eyes and my ability to be somewhere else.

“If I’m warned”.... How would you be warned without a radio? By that logic, you must always assume there’s an aircraft you do not see.

 

[UngaWunga]

Wow... that devolved fast...


Doesn't common sense dictate that you should generally land in the same direction of other aircraft at a single runway airfield? And that if you don't know what the direction in use is, you should get some altitude and fly over to see what others are using? That's what I did when learning in the Cub.

 

[Lachlan]

The other question that I haven't seen "answered" here relates to the OP and the suggestion that he not take off if he had seen the Bo on short final while he was still on the ground. So, now what does he do? He's on the runway, he can't take off because landing traffic has the right of way once he's airborne, he has the right of way at this instant because he's on the runway and the Bo isn't, but the Bo will hit him if he (the Bo) continues his approach and lands without seeing the OP already on the runway. I know what I'd do if necessary - close the throttle and head for the weeds as that will hurt less than a head-on collision. NORDO or no-NORDO, it's an uncontrolled field. The use of a radio isn't required and the Bo either wasn't using one, or was on the wrong frequency. So, again, what "should" the OP have done if he had seen the Bo prior to doing the "Go" of the T&G?

Zoom climb.

 

[Tom-D]

Wow... that devolved fast...


Doesn't common sense dictate that you should generally land in the same direction of other aircraft at a single runway airfield? And that if you don't know what the direction in use is, you should get some altitude and fly over to see what others are using? That's what I did when learning in the Cub.

Common sense isn't some thing shared by all pilots.

 

[Zeldman]

I am surprised this guy hasn't been mentioned yet....

 

[Lindberg]

“If I’m warned”.... How would you be warned without a radio? By that logic, you must always assume there’s an aircraft you do not see.

Correct. Assuming that will contribute to your longevity. Assuming the opposite will detract.

And since you read my post, I presume you read the quoted post as well. The offense of that post was that the pilot was told of another plane he didn't see.

 

[Banjo33]

Constant bearing/collision bearing, decreasing range is difficult to pick up visually without knowing where to look and that’s the plane you’re going to run into....no lateral motion, just a speck on the windshield/wing strut/canopy bow rapidly getting bigger. Think running into the rear end of a stopped car on the interstate. Lateral motion is easiest to detect visually and the one most people are looking for in the pattern, but that’s not necessarily the one you should worry about as you’re not going to run into it, at least until one of you starts turning and puts the other on collision bearing.

Just saw a vid of a T-28 landing (into the sun) right behind and, ultimately running into, a -150, followed by a massive fire ball and one pilot dead. I don’t know the details, but can’t help but wonder if they were both talking, because see and avoid didn’t save them. Had an acquaintance (Navy pilot in a jet) kill himself after cutting out his interval in the landing pattern (tower told him to turn downwind), recognized it late, and yanked the stick aft and away to avoid collision. Stall/spin from 600’ agl.

I get that there are airplanes with no installed radio, but you can count me as one of the group that struggles with justifying intentional NORDO ops at a public airport with so many affordable hand held options available. Seems pretty irresponsible to me.

 

[Duster]

If you need to talk on a radio to safely operate an aircraft in class E or G airspace, you are the danger!

Somehow, I fly 1200+ hours a year rarely talking on the radio without crashing, but they keep getting my lottery ticket numbers wrong, so it can't be luck!

Skills are skills, flying in controlled airspace under the supervision of ATC is great. Flying in E and G airspace, 100% responsible for your own actions, is also great. If you suck at flying without ATC, and/or other pilots holding your hand, well you just suck at that and need more training. That is not a bad thing, blaming others for your lack of skill is a bad thing.

P.S. If your CFI says that flying in class E/G airspace Nordo makes you a "reckless dumb ass," please find a CFI that is not a dumb ass!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Banjo33]

Exact response and attitude I expected.

 

[OkieAviator]

Wow... that devolved fast...


Doesn't common sense dictate that you should generally land in the same direction of other aircraft at a single runway airfield? And that if you don't know what the direction in use is, you should get some altitude and fly over to see what others are using? That's what I did when learning in the Cub.

Sometimes the wind shifts....

 

[timwinters]

Exact response and attitude I expected.

Because it's right?

 

[Silvaire]

Weren't we talking about in the pattern at an airport with a bunch of other people?

 

[timwinters]

There were two people in the pattern, hardly crowded...especially since it's likely from the tine of the OP that they were 727 patterns.

 

[3393RP]

How does the runway collision of a 152 and T-28 fit into this thread?

Any takers?

 

[Banjo33]

Because it's right?

No.

 

[Warmi]

If you need to talk on a radio to safely operate an aircraft in class E or G airspace, you are the danger!

Somehow, I fly 1200+ hours a year rarely talking on the radio without crashing, but they keep getting my lottery ticket numbers wrong, so it can't be luck!

Skills are skills, flying in controlled airspace under the supervision of ATC is great. Flying in E and G airspace, 100% responsible for your own actions, is also great. If you suck at flying without ATC, and/or other pilots holding your hand, well you just suck at that and need more training. That is not a bad thing, blaming others for your lack of skill is a bad thing.

P.S. If your CFI says that flying in class E/G airspace Nordo makes you a "reckless dumb ass," please find a CFI that is not a dumb ass!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What’s there to learn .. either see and avoid works reliably enough or it doesn’t - it is not that hard, you either see the other guy or you don’t and if you don’t and there is no radio being used then you are down to dumb luck.
Nothing guarantees anything but safety is all about putting as many layers as possible between you and the disaster and using radio is just another layer - if you combine the radio with see and avoid and proper use of pattern procedures , well, you have 3 layers which is always better than 2 which in turn is better than just one ... I mean , it is not that hard to understand , is it ?

 

[bflynn]

How does the runway collision of a 152 and T-28 fit into this thread?

Any takers?

There were two airplanes on the same runway. Radio apparently didn’t work and see and avoid failed because of the sun. Otherwise, only a tenuous connection.

I say that if you don’t like nordo aircraft, go fly in controlled airspace where they aren’t.

 

[PaulS]

So here's how I look at it. Should everyone be looking out the window? Absolutely, there is no excuse for failure to do that. Is that 100 % effective? Nope, as can be seen from accidents over the years. Next question, does having a radio in the airplane help with situational awareness and help avoid accidents? Absolutely, it helps tremendously by allowing the other pilots to look in the area you broadcast and find you to maintain separation. Is there any excuse not to use a radio in the pattern other than equipment failure? Not in my book. You can buy a transceiver for less than $200 now, short money compared to other aviation costs for something that makes it safer for everyone flying. It's just a good idea.

 

[Duster]

Warmi,

I don't disagree about the value of communicating on ctaf. However, I couldn't disagree more about learning to be better at spotting traffic and/or critical obstacles etc.

My point, was that the we need to be the best we can be at operating in different types of airspace. Reality is that communication is not required in class E and G airspace, proceed accordingly.

That said, how often do you hear pilots calling from 10 west, when they are actually in some other direction? In my experience, it happens all the time. There are many days in central TX when there are so many aircraft reporting on 122.8, that it is downright absurd. There's always the one guy that wants to tell his life story every 30 seconds, instead of just reporting his position and clear/brief intentions; meanwhile he gets stepped on by the Skyhawk calling every leg of a closed pattern for an hour straight, along with the other Skyhawks doing the exact same thing at 12 different airports within 100 miles on the same ctaf. On top of that, Bill wants to BS with his buddy George, b/c there is no one in the world besides them, and they have never heard of using a discreet inner-flight frequency. The icing on the cake, are the ifr pilots reporting as though vfr pilots have a clue about what they are saying, which of course they don't.

So yeah, talk on the radio in uncontrolled airspace, but please strive to be the best you can be at using all those layers of safety.

The reason I don't talk a lot on the radio at work, is because there's a lot of different tasks/information I am juggling in the cockpit, we're also talking on our work radio. Combine that with flying between 5' AGL up to as high as 500' in turns, trying to be as efficient as possible; all whilst not hitting wires, towers, other low flying aircraft, and performing a quality application on target in constantly changing atmospheric conditions etc. In that scenario, it is usually a lot safer to focus on listening to traffic, and only speak when absolutely necessary. My life literally depends on see and avoid all day, every day at work. If it wasn't possible to get better at that, seriously doubt I'd still be alive.

In my personal aircraft, we always communicate within 10 miles of an uncontrolled airport. Also, I spent a ridiculous amount of money on all kinds of bright flashing lights!

 

[Banjo33]

Warmi,

I don't disagree about the value of communicating on ctaf. However, I couldn't disagree more about learning to be better at spotting traffic and/or critical obstacles etc.

My point, was that the we need to be the best we can be at operating in different types of airspace. Reality is that communication is not required in class E and G airspace, proceed accordingly.

That said, how often do you hear pilots calling from 10 west, when they are actually in some other direction? In my experience, it happens all the time. There are many days in central TX when there are so many aircraft reporting on 122.8, that it is downright absurd. There's always the one guy that wants to tell his life story every 30 seconds, instead of just reporting his position and clear/brief intentions; meanwhile he gets stepped on by the Skyhawk calling every leg of a closed pattern for an hour straight, along with the other Skyhawks doing the exact same thing at 12 different airports within 100 miles on the same ctaf. On top of that, Bill wants to BS with his buddy George, b/c there is no one in the world besides them, and they have never heard of using a discreet inner-flight frequency. The icing on the cake, are the ifr pilots reporting as though vfr pilots have a clue about what they are saying, which of course they don't.

So yeah, talk on the radio in uncontrolled airspace, but please strive to be the best you can be at using all those layers of safety.

The reason I don't talk a lot on the radio at work, is because there's a lot of different tasks/information I am juggling in the cockpit, we're also talking on our work radio. Combine that with flying between 5' AGL up to as high as 500' in turns, trying to be as efficient as possible; all whilst not hitting wires, towers, other low flying aircraft, and performing a quality application on target in constantly changing atmospheric conditions etc. In that scenario, it is usually a lot safer to focus on listening to traffic, and only speak when absolutely necessary. My life literally depends on see and avoid all day, every day at work. If it wasn't possible to get better at that, seriously doubt I'd still be alive.

In my personal aircraft, we always communicate within 10 miles of an uncontrolled airport. Also, I spent a ridiculous amount of money on all kinds of bright flashing lights!

If this was your point in your last post, then I completely missed it. I took your point as an opportunity to call pilots and their CFIs “dumb asses” for thinking that flying in E/G NORDO was dangerous, which was not the topic being discussed. The topic, as I understand it, was operating comm-out, with other aircraft in the pattern, at a non-towered field and whether it was or was not the safest approach.

This post however, is spot on. Other than your disagreement with warmi, which I don’t see that he made the comment you’re attributing to him.

You hit on the misuse of the radio at non-towered fields, which I think is a very valid issue and can be as, or potentially more dangerous, than operating comm-out. Instructing in a very dynamic environment, I see it very frequently where a student’s poor use of standard comms (standardized, timely, and accurate), quickly degrades SA for everyone in the pattern and as a result affects the flying skills/mechanics of everyone in the pattern and can become a safety of flight issue. The same holds true for comms in an airport traffic pattern, especially when you have low time pilots and/or students.

While accurate, timely, concise comms can improve SA; inaccurate, undisciplined, and even excessive comms can reduce SA and contribute to an unsafe traffic pattern.

 

[Duster]

Banjo,

The dumbass remark was in response to Mr SBestCFI's statement in post #30. I don't generally go around calling people dumbass, was making a joke and it must have come across poorly.

I disagree with Warmi on this statement.

What’s there to learn .. either see and avoid works reliably enough or it doesn’t - it is not that hard, you either see the other guy or you don’t and if you don’t and there is no radio being used then you are down to dumb luck.

In my experience, there is much to learn about see and avoid. It can be quite challenging at times to see and avoid traffic/obstacles. The more we learn to better deal with those challenges, the more adept we are at operating safely in a potentially nordo environment.

The main point I am trying to make here, is that class E and G airspace does not require communication. Nordo operations are more common in some regions than others, but every pilot should assume that there are other aircraft not reporting on the ctaf, and proceed in a manner that takes this into account at all times.

Whatever problems an individual may have with nordo operations, they need to acknowledge that they are legal and happen every day. If a pilot plans to fly in uncontrolled airpsace, then they need to do so with the seriousness and professionalism that they would in every other airspace. It is what it is, and pilots should either get proficient at it, or stay out of it.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OkieAviator]

The main point I am trying to make here, is that class E and G airspace does not require communication. Nordo operations are more common in some regions than others, but every pilot should assume that there are other aircraft not reporting on the ctaf, and proceed in a manner that takes this into account at all times.

That’s spot on. Watch for other traffic.... more than a few times I’ve landed and there’s been a plane also landing and for whatever reason not talking or unable to talk on the radio. You can only control yourself regardless of what the amatuer air police think.

 

[3393RP]

The "Amatuer air police" remark is silly. There are posters in this thread saying that using a radio effectively at uncontrolled airports is an important safety addition to see and avoid.

There are other posters that claim this is somehow a weakness, and that every pilot should be able to operate around an uncontrolled airport without using a radio, and by the way, you're a lesser pilot if you believe that not using a radio is undesirable.

That seems rather ridiculous to me.

 

[timwinters]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I heard on CTAF a couple of weeks ago. It occurred at a neighboring airport that is on the same frequency as the one I'm based at. The runways are 15 and 33.

I hear an announcement "Podunk traffic, archer666, 5 miles to the west, will enter a left down wind for 33."

And there was a response from a pilot who I heard just a minute or so before announce clear the runway, " Wind is 090 at 6. Runway 15 is the active."

No one else was in the pattern.

"Ohhhhhh" ...I think to myself... "a whopping 6 knots and 30 degrees off of a direct cross wind...ohhhhh...how could he be so callously careless as to land downwind in such gale force winds? Good thing this guy is around to save his life!!!"

Of course, the guy who was calling him out sounded like he was a centenarian.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I heard on CTAF a couple of weeks ago. It occurred at a neighboring airport that is on the same frequency as the one I'm based at. The runways are 15 and 33.

I hear an announcement "Podunk traffic, archer666, 5 miles to the west, will enter a left down wind for 33."

Response from a pilot who I heard just a minute or so before announce clear the runway, " Wind is 090 at 6. Runway 15 is the active."

No one else was in the pattern.

"Ohhhhhh" ...I think to myself... "a whopping 6 knots and 30 degrees off of a direct cross wind...ohhhhh...how could he be so callously careless as to land downwind in such gale force winds? Good thing this guy is around to save his life!!!"

Of course, the guy who was calling him out sounded like he was a centenarian.

Seems to me the proper response from the arriving pilot would be, "thanks for the info. Podunk traffic, Archer 666, 4 west. Will enter left downwind runway 33."

 

[gdwindowpane]

Response from a pilot who I heard just a minute or so before announce clear the runway, " Wind is 090 at 6. Runway 15 is the active."

Would it have been better if this pilot simply reported his position and intent? Podunk traffic, Cessna 555 turning base runway 15 or wherever they might have been? Would have at least sounded less authoritarion.

 

[Salty]

Would it have been better if this pilot simply reported his position and intent? Podunk traffic, Cessna 555 turning base runway 15 or wherever they might have been? Would have at least sounded less authoritarion.

No. If he’s landing on 15 then what he said made that very clear. Doesn’t mean you have to land on the same runway, but it is active as he said.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have this theory. It was developed when I started flying. It seemed the same topic was the cover story in multiple flying mags within a month or two of each other. At first I thought there must be some copying going on. But then I started thinking maybe there was some aviation "collective mind at work." The theory has held through the years and into social media.

Sure enough, this morning I come across a Facebook post in which someone suggests there should be a rule prohibiting landing into the sun at a nontowered airport. The real world example involved a NORDO airplane so of course it devolved into pilot's seeking to force other pilots to have radios.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No. If he’s landing on 15 then what he said made that very clear. Doesn’t mean you have to land on the same runway, but it is active as he said.

There is no such thing as a "active" runway at a nontowered airport. "That's the one I used" (which is the scenario @timwinters gave) does not carry any weight except to the person who said it.

"We have 4 in the pattern using 15" may take more time, but conveys much more information to the arriving pilot who might not be paying attention.

 

[Salty]

There is no such thing as a "active" runway at a nontowered airport. "That's the one I used" (which is the scenario @timwinters gave) does not carry any weight except to the person who said it.

"We have 4 in the pattern using 15" may take more time, but conveys much more information to the arriving pilot who might not be paying attention.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. Any runway someone is actively using is an active runway. This is good information for others to know. Yes, it’s implied in a call that you are in downwind for that runway, but I see no harm in making it more clear. If that makes you feel like you are being controlled, well that’s your problem IMO.

 

[timwinters]

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. Any runway someone is actively using is an active runway.

Well...except there was no one actively using this runway. The only other plane in the area (Mr. Pseudocontroller) was already clear and headed towards the ramp/hangar.

And I agree:

There is no such thing as a "active" runway at a nontowered airport.

 

[Salty]

Well...except there was no one actively using this runway. The only other plane in the area (Mr. Pseudocontroller) was already clear and headed towards the ramp/hangar.

And I agree:

You’re right. I missed that he was not still in the pattern. I agree.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. Any runway someone is actively using is an active runway. This is good information for others to know. Yes, it’s implied in a call that you are in downwind for that runway, but I see no harm in making it more clear. If that makes you feel like you are being controlled, well that’s your problem IMO.

Point is you are not clarifying anything more than a normal standard traffic call does. All you are still saying is "I am using that runway." I'm not feeling controlled because my response to "Runway 33 is active" might well be (to have some fun), "No, Runway 15 is active" because I just said so.

We have some really nice standard phraseology to use for nontowered airports. Everybody learns it. Everyone understands it. "The active" is pretty much on the same level as "any traffic please advise."