Runway Incursion -- double-check final

[Unregistered]

Okay, it happened to me today. My instructor and I were taking off from an untowered airport this afternoon. We were listening to traffic, and heard someone turning base. We were ready to go, and figured we could beat him out with no problem.

Made the radio call that we were taking the active and heard, just after we passed the hold line that there was a plane on "very short final". My instructor and I had both looked and not seen anything, and had not heard a call from this plane.

Since I was well onto the runway by this point, I did a relatively high-speed turn to align with the runway and did a takeoff without delay. Just about the time we got to Vr, we heard the other pilot say he was doing a go-around. After I was established, I made a radio call to apologize.

Lessons learned:
- Don't let impatience lead you to hurry your takeoff
- Even though everyone in the area seems to have a radio, don't assume they're all making calls. People forget!
- After you've checked that no one is on final, CHECK AGAIN
The airport environment is just about the most dangerous place
- and be courteous.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What sometimes will happen though is the landing aircraft PIC will be really overzealous in initiating the go-around either because they sincerely don't appreciate the fact that you'll be safely airborne in an average of less than 20 seconds or they feel the need to vocalize over the radio how you "put them out of their way..." blah, blah, blah.

If that aircraft was actually closer (therefore used erroneous reporting call) or there was another unseen and/or unannouced, closer aircraft on final that became short final on your departure roll then that is something different and could be cause for concern. Although things often can be done somewhat better somehow, it sounds like everyone there did OK in the end.

I like to routinely take a few seconds to face the aircraft towards the final approach and base paths to scan before rolling towards the departure direction (towered airport or not) and it is one of the most persistently forgotten or avoided or done half baked safety precautions by my students and others I've flown with. Some PICs even do a 360 before the hold short line.

 

[Graueradler]

It is important to remember when checking for traffic on final that you are close to the point that an aircraft on final is aiming for. That means that there will be very little relative motion in your view of the plane on final. He will be prety much a non-moving dot that is growing in size.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I'd add to that Dave by saying that it's a good idea to scan the other end of the runway as well in case somebody is landing against the grain.

 

[etsisk]

The other day we practiced (and announced, repeatedly) a straight-in final approach at our grass strip. We called it from 5 out and from 3 out and then from about base-leg length out, talking to another plane that was in the pattern and landed ahead of us. Everything was coordinated beautifully. Then we got over the trees and heard another pilot announce he was back taxiing down that very runway, and he turned onto the runway, as we announced our own "VERY short final" (we were pretty much over the threshold). He stopped and tucked in tight, apologizing profusely, and we just did a go around, no problem. But I reckon it happens. My CFI said that in all his years he's had maybe ten of these situations. I said, "I've got ONE!"

Good to know this whole go-around business works the way it's supposed to work, though.

 

[Bill]

We called it from 5 out and from 3 out and then from about base-leg length out, talking to another plane that was in the pattern and landed ahead of us. Everything was coordinated beautifully.

Isn't it nice when everyone does what they should and are nice and polite to each other?

Last Thursday night I was shooting GPS 32 practice into DNN, and made my position call entering the manditory hold. Heard nothing. Passing the fix inbound, I called 5 mile straight in final, and a fellow called out departing RY32. At three miles, I call 3mi straight in final, and he calles downwind abeam the numbers. I replied that we'd break off the practice approach and depart to the north, he called back and said please no, enjoy your practice approach, I'll extend my down wind and follow you in. Very nice, and we then went missed to the north.

Very nice when pilots help each other.

And yes, even though I have a good safety pilot, I did take a quick peek at him as we passed.

 

[Missa]

Last Thursday night I was shooting GPS 32 practice into DNN, and made my position call entering the manditory hold. Heard nothing. Passing the fix inbound, I called 5 mile straight in final, and a fellow called out departing RY32.

And just as a reminder to all the instrument folks out there, your calls at an uncontrolled feild need to be as understandable to your average VFR only pilot as it is to you. I can't tell you how many time I hear a call over blah fix on the VOR Alpha approach on the frequancy when I was a student. My instructor informed me what that meant for our feild but if I heard something similar at another feild, I wouldn't have a clue. If I'm flying on a nice sunny Sunday, I don't breif myself on instrument approch procedures... specially because I'm not an IR pilot yet.

Adding that 5 miles NW on the "blah blah aproach" gives the VFR pilots a clue where to look and doesn't take up that much more time to say.

Missa

 

[ScottM]

And just as a reminder to all the instrument folks out there, your calls at an uncontrolled feild need to be as understandable to your average VFR only pilot as it is to you. I can't tell you how many time I hear a call over blah fix on the VOR Alpha approach on the frequancy when I was a student. My instrucor informed me what that meant for our feild but if I heard something similar at another feild, I wouldn't have a clue. If I'm flying on a nice sunny Sunday, I don't breif myself on instrument approch procedures... specially because I'm not an IFR pilot yet.

Adding that 5 miles NW on the "blah blah aproach" gives the VFR pilots a clue where to look and doesn't take up that much more time to say.

Missa

It is a very good point. When I get authorized to go over to the CTAF my calls will also give positon reports that a VFR person could figure if the filed is VFR.

Coming into KSMD ontime I was IMC but the field was VMC. I started making my call '8116B 8miles west inbound on the GPS13 approach' and heard a bunch of EAA Young Eagle flights.

So we started talking and I was able to easily join up into the pattern without any muss or fuss once I broke out into VMC.

 

[etsisk]

Isn't it nice when everyone does what they should and are nice and polite to each other? ...

Yep! But he still pulled out in front of us!!

 

[Sam D]

Some PICs even do a 360 before the hold short line.

Coming back to my home airport after my checkride. I was on short final and watched a plane do the full 360 and then proceed to pull out on the runway and take off. I guess you can get too used to the procedure and forget what it is for!

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Coming back to my home airport after my checkride. I was on short final and watched a plane do the full 360 and then proceed to pull out on the runway and take off. I guess you can get too used to the procedure and forget what it is for!

Yeah, like the 'walk around' of the aircraft?!

 

[rmciottijr]

Good point Bob,

I was departing runway 9 just about at rotation and heard a call “red and yellow Cherokee final for 27”. I repeated that I was departing runway 9 and that at Brandywine runway 9 was active. Unicom also tried to contact the Cherokee with no luck. As soon as I was airborne and able to turn I left the pattern. For some reason this guy could not here us radio broken or just was not listening. I found out when I returned that he landed on 27 with another aircraft waiting at the run-up point for him to land.


Bob

 

[ScottM]

Good point Bob,

I was departing runway 9 just about at rotation and heard a call “red and yellow Cherokee final for 27”. I repeated that I was departing runway 9 and that at Brandywine runway 9 was active. Unicom also tried to contact the Cherokee with no luck. As soon as I was airborne and able to turn I left the pattern. For some reason this guy could not here us radio broken or just was not listening. I found out when I returned that he landed on 27 with another aircraft waiting at the run-up point for him to land.


Bob

You where there but I think I may have considered a balked take off at that time. Your call though

 

[EdFred]

I had a straight in to 6D6 (Greenville, MI) last October, landing to the west. I called 10 miles out and heard a CAP flight in the pattern. We had a bit of talking between us on the CTAF, with both of us offering to alter our patterns. I offered a 360º at 3 miles, as they were turning crosswind, and then he emplored me to take the straight in. They turned in behind me, probably only had to extend downwind 1/2 mile or so, and then he chewed me out for my nice landing. It was an instructor and student pilot, and he said I wasn't allowed to make a nice landing and make the first turn off like that with a student behind me. OOPS.

 

[rmciottijr]

You where there but I think I may have considered a balked take off at that time. Your call though

If I balked the take off I would be on the runway longer and would he have seen me? In the air I could get away from him.

 

[Bill]

Adding that 5 miles NW on the "blah blah aproach" gives the VFR pilots a clue where to look and doesn't take up that much more time to say.

Understood, I just shortened my call for typing...my full call was

"Dalton traffic, Archer 4147T is on a 5 mile straight in final GPS runway 32 approach, Dalton"

 

[poadeleted20]

"Dalton traffic, Archer 4147T is on a 5 mile straight in final GPS runway 32 approach, Dalton"

What purpose is there in including "GPS runway 32 approach" in that call? Just wastes bandwidth by adding nine syllables to the transmission without providing any useful information beyond that already provided.

 

[inav8r]

What purpose is there in including "GPS runway 32 approach" in that call? Just wastes bandwidth by adding nine syllables to the transmission without providing any useful information beyond that already provided.

Being a non IR rated pilot, I hear that a lot around here. I have always assumed that pilots say their on an approach so that others will yeild to them and let them fly their practice approach.

I'm not trying to touch on a sore spot, it's just how I've always taken it. I've gotten yelled at over CTAF once for turning base to final (in a C172) immediatly after someone's called a 5-7 mile final on some approach or another (also a C172) where they've stated their intentions were to go missed...

 

[poadeleted20]

Being a non IR rated pilot, I hear that a lot around here. I have always assumed that pilots say their on an approach so that others will yeild to them and let them fly their practice approach.

Perhaps so, but if they're on final, and lower than the aircraft in the pattern, they already have right of way -- 14 CFR 91.113(g). The fact that they are flying an instrument approach is legally irrelevant.

I'm not trying to touch on a sore spot, it's just how I've always taken it. I've gotten yelled at over CTAF once for turning base to final (in a C172) immediatly after someone's called a 5-7 mile final on some approach

If someone's on a 5-7 mile final in a 172, they have no call to yell at someone who turns 3/4 mile final in front of them from the pattern -- that other aircraft will be parked before the 172 crosses the threshold. Right of way is only an issue when two aircraft are going to get too close together for safety, and that's not going to happen between a 172 that is 5 miles from the runway and a plane turning base to final at the normal distance out.

 

[Missa]

Actually that call would help me to understand that the person on a 5 mile final is on a published instrument approach and not just a rude idjit not following recomended VFR pattern entry at a uncontrolled feild. I'll take the extra useful frequency chatter over the usual where are we going to lunch when we both land chatter that happens sometime on CTAF, anyday.

Missa

 

[ScottM]

Actually that call would help me to understand that the person on a 5 mile final is on a publish instrument approach and not just a rude idjit not following recomended VFR pattern entry at a uncontrolled feild. I's take the extra useful frequency chatter over the usual where are we going to lunch when we both land chatter that happens sometime on CTAF anyday.

Missa

I was about to say that. There are times when guys start announcing they are on a 20mile long final jus tso they can feel free to but in front of anyone that is in the pattern and not have to get with the flow. The on approach call lets them know you are not being a, what did you call 'em Missa, ah yes, an 'idjit' ;-)

 

[grattonja]

And it's not always just VFR pilots who are not familiar with the approaches doing pattern work. I sure do plenty of it, particularly when I am up with the Champ. It's nice to know what someone straight in is actually doing. I can gauge where they are etc. I vote for using the extra 3 seconds of bandwidth.

Jim G

 

[Bill]

What purpose is there in including "GPS runway 32 approach" in that call? Just wastes bandwidth by adding nine syllables to the transmission without providing any useful information beyond that already provided.

Ron, see Missa's response below, that is why I add the nine syllables.

 

[Bill]

Being a non IR rated pilot, I hear that a lot around here. I have always assumed that pilots say their on an approach so that others will yeild to them and let them fly their practice approach.

I add it for added information, not to assume I can bust on in there. As I told above, I offered to break off my approach early, and depart north. The guy in the pattern was kind and said he'd extend his downwind.

"After you, no, after you...."

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

And it's not always just VFR pilots who are not familiar with the approaches doing pattern work. I sure do plenty of it, particularly when I am up with the Champ. It's nice to know what someone straight in is actually doing. I can gauge where they are etc. I vote for using the extra 3 seconds of bandwidth.

Jim G

I've used both calls and on average, I get an increased probability that the pilots in the pattern will be much more co-operative than usual with the longer call. If they seem to be hesitant or voice undue concern, I'll even even add "we're low approach only, you're no factor" because many don't know what the approach/missed approach details are or what to expect from IFR practicing.

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually that call would help me to understand that the person on a 5 mile final is on a published instrument approach and not just a rude idjit not following recomended VFR pattern entry at a uncontrolled feild.

I guess I must be "a rude idjit" because I make straight-ins VFR at nontowered airports all the time.

In any event, there is nothing anywhere that says one should not use a straight in rather than go all the way around Robinson's barn to enter the pattern on the "standard" 45-downwind entry. The straight-in is perfectly legal, and when an aircraft is coming in from that direction, it is, when executed properly, in many ways better for safety and conflict avoidance than trying to manevuer to the 45 entry. Yes, a "rude idjit" in the pattern can boggle things up by trying to cut off an aircraft making straight in approaches, but 91.113(g) makes clear everyone's responsibilities, and the NTSB will cut off the pilot privileges of anyone who does cut off a plane on a straight in. See Administrator v. Fekete.

 

[gismo]

Perhaps so, but if they're on final, and lower than the aircraft in the pattern, they already have right of way -- 14 CFR 91.113(g). The fact that they are flying an instrument approach is legal irrelevant.

Very true.

If someone's on a 5-7 mile final in a 172, they have no call to yell at someone who turns 3/4 mile final in front of them from the pattern -- that other aircraft will be parked before the 172 crosses the threshold. Right of way is only an issue when two aircraft are going to get too close together for safety, and that's not going to happen between a 172 that is 5 miles from the runway and a plane turning base to final at the normal distance out.

Heck IMO no pilot should be yelling at another on the CTAF except to help avoid an imminent collision.

I do think it's worthwhile to specify "on approach" or the like when descending through clouds. It might wake a "clear of clouds" pattern worker to the fact that someone is going to pop out of the cloud bases. I suppose giving your altitude (always a good idea IMC or VMC) would serve the same purpose with more content.

 

[etsisk]

Actually that call would help me to understand that the person on a 5 mile final is on a published instrument approach and not just a rude idjit not following recomended VFR pattern entry at a uncontrolled feild. I'll take the extra useful frequency chatter over the usual where are we going to lunch when we both land chatter that happens sometime on CTAF, anyday. Missa

Gosh, we did it for training purposes. Hope that doesn't still make me a rude idjit!

 

[SkyHog]

IMHO, there are many times when a straight in approach is both easier and safer. For example - at my home airport, entering the 45 for the downwind to either 17 or 35 means you have to contact Albuquerque Approach to get into the C airspace. More often than not, I am approaching from either the north or the south, so its much easier to enter the straight in instead. The recommended traffic pattern entry for the runway is to enter on the upwind and fly the whole pattern to land. That doesn't feel right or overly safe to me (especially with traffic taking off), so the straight in is the best way to do it.

I don't think that makes me a "rude idjet" does it?

To be honest, there are other times I'll do a straight in also. Usually when I am approaching a runway right at the runway. Why break off a direct approach to the runway to circle around and spend the extra 10-15 minutes just to enter the pattern in a way that IMO reduces your view of the traffic pattern?

 

[Greebo]

I don't have a problem with straight-ins - neither making them, or having others make them, so long as the person on straight in is considerate of those in the pattern.

If I'm set up for a straight in and the pattern's quiet, I'll take it. If the pattern's busy, I'll enter on the upwind and follow the pattern around. Gives me a good opportunity to get a really solid visual scan of the air and ground activity.

 

[Missa]

Ron, just because something is legal to do doesn't exclude it from being rude to do in some cases. Entering straight in without making radio calls is legal, but in my opinion only performed by a rude idjits at 2pm on a summer VFR day.

I admit it, I've done straight in's too when it's appropriate. At 10pm with no one in the pattern, yes. At 2pm on a VFR summer day when every training aircraft on the field in the pattern, NO WAY (and yes I've seen people do it and have thought 'what a rude idjit').

Nick, your situation is different, at Mettatal the expected pattern entry for 18 is from a mid field crosswind because no one enters from the east (DET Class bravo surface ring is just to the east) and maneuvering for the AIM 'recommended' 45 entry takes you too close to the bravo. When the landscape and airspace dictates a non-standard pattern entry it's the rude idjit that makes a standard one. First rule of aviation, all the rules may be broken in the interest of safety. The rules are put in place with the intention of increasing safety but the rules can not cover all possible situations so in some cases the rules are not to be followed in the interest of safety, like at your field and at Mettatal. Any pilot flying to the field is required to brief themselves of such changes to 'the rules' (aka the AIM recommended procedures) in effect at any airport they plan to fly to.

When there are lots of people out flying you want to be where you are expected to be by other pilots so that the other pilots are more likely to see you. If you are at a field that uses the standard rules, and doing a non standard entry because you are doing instrument practice letting the people in the area know not only where you are but you are there why helps others not only to look out for you but understand why you are where you are. If the bandwidth is there to waste time with 9 extra syllables to aid understanding, use it. If the bandwidth is not available I would have to wonder if it’s not too crowded to be doing practice instrument approaches.

Missa

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, just because something is legal to do doesn't exclude it from being rude to do in some cases. Entering straight in without making radio calls is legal, but in my opinion only performed by a rude idjits at 2pm on a summer VFR day.

You are entitled to your opinions, but neither the FAA, the NTSB, nor I agree with you on this one, so it would be inappropriate for you to voice that opinion to another pilot who did that either on CTAF or after landing unless you are spoiling for a fight.

I admit it, I've done straight in's too when it's appropriate. At 10pm with no one in the pattern, yes. At 2pm on a VFR summer day when every training aircraft on the field in the pattern, NO WAY (and yes I've seen people do it and have thought 'what a rude idjit').

Think it all you want, but bite your lip if it happens. Mr. Fekete allowed his opinions to get the better of him in that situation, and it cost him his pilot certificate when he reacted by cutting off the straight-in aircraft.

When the landscape and airspace dictates a non-standard pattern entry it's the rude idjit that makes a standard one.

If the landscape and airspace dictate a non-standard pattern entry, it's up to the airport management to put an appropriate note in their A/FD entry. Until then, expect any sort of legal entry, which includes straight-in, upwind, crosswind, etc.

First rule of aviation, all the rules may be broken in the interest of safety.

That's not quite what 91.3(b) says. It only authorizes you to deviate from the rules (i.e., the FAR's) to the extent necessary to deal with an inflight emergency. You are not permitted to deviate from the rules merely because you think your way is "safer."

The rules are put in place with the intention of increasing safety but the rules can not cover all possible situations

Very nearly the exact words from the NTSB on why the FAA need not specifically define all prohibited conduct.

so in some cases the rules are not to be followed in the interest of safety,

That's not the way the rules read. You are not authorized to substitute your judgement for the rules other than in an emergency.

like at your field and at Mettatal. Any pilot flying to the field is required to brief themselves of such changes to 'the rules' (aka the AIM recommended procedures) in effect at any airport they plan to fly to.

First, while the AIM contains recommended procedures, it is not "the rules" the way the FAR's are. Second, the A/FD is the place for airports to publish non-standard procedures in use at their fields. If the airport fails to publish them there, the FAA cannot and will not expect pilots to follow them.

When there are lots of people out flying you want to be where you are expected to be by other pilots so that the other pilots are more likely to see you.

While that's a nice thought, the regs require you while flying in the pattern to keep your eyes open for anyone flying a legal approach to the airport, including a straight-in, and to yield right-of-way if required by 14 CFR 91.119(g).

If you are at a field that uses the standard rules, and doing a non standard entry because you are doing instrument practice letting the people in the area know not only where you are but you are there why helps others not only to look out for you but understand why you are where you are.

Why? Are you going to yield right of way to an IFR straight-in but cut off a VFR straight in? Or are you going to chew out as a "rude idjit" the VFR straight in?

CTAF is what it says -- an advisory frequency. While it's a good idea to let folks know what you're doing at nontowered airports, it is both unnecessary and counterproductive to let them know why unless you're deviating from the rules (not just "standard practice"). It is unnecessary because the reason for making the straight-in is irrelevant to what everyone is supposed to do. In addition, there's nothing that says you can't fly a straight-in without a radio. It is counterproductive because there are so many airports sharing so few CTAF's that we have to minimize comm to only that necessary to achieve the purpose. Since the "why" doesn't change what we are required to do, there's no need for it.

If the bandwidth is there to waste time with 9 extra syllables to aid understanding, use it.

While you may feel better for knowing why a pilot is flying a straight-in, your peace of mind isn't sufficient reason to waste what little bandwidth is available.

If the bandwidth is not available I would have to wonder if it’s not too crowded to be doing practice instrument approaches.

If folks would limit their comm to only what is necessary, and not adding in extraneous stuff like what instrument approach they're flying, or why they're flying a straight-in, the frequency will be less crowded.

 

[Missa]

You are entitled to your opinions, but neither the FAA, the NTSB, nor I agree with you on this one, so it would be inappropriate for you to voice that opinion to another pilot who did that either on CTAF or after landing unless you are spoiling for a fight.

It is my opinion and I don't know why you are jumping all over me for it and all over Bill for us liking information that takes 9 syllables for maybe, what an extra 2 seconds of a transmission?

Who said I would voice my opinion that some pilot is an IDIOT for the way he/she was flying over CTAF or any other way??? Obviously he's an IDIOT and nothing I have to say will change that.

This was a discussion on the value of adding 2 seconds of radio transmission for better understanding, not on wasting radio band width on a p*ssing match. I don't even complain to the people that are discussing lunch plans on the CTAF because it just takes up more room. And come on Ron THINK... why would a female be spoiling for a fight??? With a few exceptions we are guaranteed to lose and I don't take bets I'm not guaranteed to win.

Think it all you want, but bite your lip if it happens. Mr. Fekete allowed his opinions to get the better of him in that situation, and it cost him his pilot certificate when he reacted by cutting off the straight-in aircraft.

What in any of my posts EVER has lead you to belive I would do something like that?

That's not quite what 91.3(b) says. It only authorizes you to deviate from the rules (i.e., the FAR's) to the extent necessary to deal with an inflight emergency. You are not permitted to deviate from the rules merely because you think your way is "safer." Very nearly the exact words from the NTSB on why the FAA need not specifically define all prohibited conduct.

That's not the way the rules read. You are not authorized to substitute your judgement for the rules other than in an emergency.

First, while the AIM contains recommended procedures, it is not "the rules" the way the FAR's are. Second, the A/FD is the place for airports to publish non-standard procedures in use at their fields. If the airport fails to publish them there, the FAA cannot and will not expect pilots to follow them.

While that's a nice thought, the regs require you while flying in the pattern to keep your eyes open for anyone flying a legal approach to the airport, including a straight-in, and to yield right-of-way if required by 14 CFR 91.119(g).

And when did I say I was refering to the FAR's? Other then the rule that any turns in the pattern must be made to the left, the 'standard' pattern entry is given in the AIM not the FAR's. The AIM may not be 'the rule book' but is the 'recomended rule book' which technically you don't have to follow but since it's published to have everyone on the same page it's a good idea to follow it because it makes us all safer.

Why? Are you going to yield right of way to an IFR straight-in but cut off a VFR straight in? Or are you going to chew out as a "rude idjit" the VFR straight in?

Uh no, just the opposite. If there is someone who is doing something weird for an unknown reason or someone whom I already feel flys like a idiot. I'm going to give them MUCH MORE SPACE and stay away from them as I don't want to become a static because of their poor skills or attitude. Just like I stay way from the ijits on the road and just like at towered airports where if tower know you fly well they give you more freedom and if they know you fly like crud or are in a school AC, they don't let you do as much. (ex. at PTK if the North pattern was packed, the AC that flew the most reliable were given the south runway because they knew you could get out of the way of the jet traffic if the tower asked)

If I know that the person is doing the straight in for a reason ‘practice approach’ 1- I know he’s doing it for a good reason and not bcause he feels he's too important to do it the way eveyone else is 2- I know he shouldn’t be on the runway for an extended period. I can cut in closer behind him and expedite all the traffic at the airport instead of giving him the room I give to the perceived idiots.

CTAF is what it says -- an advisory frequency. While it's a good idea to let folks know what you're doing at nontowered airports, it is both unnecessary and counterproductive to let them know why unless you're deviating from the rules (not just "standard practice"). It is unnecessary because the reason for making the straight-in is irrelevant to what everyone is supposed to do. In addition, there's nothing that says you can't fly a straight-in without a radio. It is counterproductive because there are so many airports sharing so few CTAF's that we have to minimize comm to only that necessary to achieve the purpose. Since the "why" doesn't change what we are required to do, there's no need for it.

While you may feel better for knowing why a pilot is flying a straight-in, your peace of mind isn't sufficient reason to waste what little bandwidth is available.

I think the two seconds it takes to say it the added information on the CTAF helps for good situational awareness and is a much more productive use of bandwidth then the constant chit chat chatter that goes on all the time on the CTAFs I listen too. If you want to go after someone go after the geezer idiots spending 10 mins making lunch plans over CTAF instead of the people who are adding to the situational awareness of the pilots with an additional 9 syllables

If folks would limit their comm to only what is necessary, and not adding in extraneous stuff like what instrument approach they're flying, or why they're flying a straight-in, the frequency will be less crowded.

I was taking that a busy frequance would equated to a busy pattern and therefore it's too busy to be flying a non standard VFR approach to the airport.

Missa
-going off to pull my panties out of a bunch......

 

[Bill]

If folks would limit their comm to only what is necessary, and not adding in extraneous stuff like what instrument approach they're flying, or why they're flying a straight-in, the frequency will be less crowded.

OK, uncle. I'll drop instrument approach stuff.

Next question:

This approach had a mandatory hold in lue of procedure turn, should I announce entering the hold, or just when crossing the hold waypoint inbound? (hold waypoint is 5nm from threashold)

 

[Missa]

OK, uncle. I'll drop instrument approach stuff.

Next question:

This approach had a mandatory hold in lue of procedure turn, should I announce entering the hold, or just when crossing the hold waypoint inbound? (hold waypoint is 5nm from threashold)

No Bill! Don't succumb just because one person thinks the added 2 seconds of the transmission isn't worth the situational awareness don't punish the rest of us who benifit from it.

Missa

 

[grattonja]

I can't speak for Missa on what she is saying about straight ins, but I know what I think, and I believe it comports with what she is saying.

Straight in CAN be safe, and it CAN be stupid. On my first solo at S37, a pilot who will remain nameless, but who always makes straight ins without any radio calls, made a straight in behind me. For me, he was no factor. For the DE training with a student in a fast multi behind me, he was a damn near midair. At that time, when he made the straight in, there were at least 4 other aircraft in the pattern with me, all doing standard pattern. It looked like a mosquito hatch when I turned base and looked at all the planes on downwind. That day, straight in was rude, and dangerous, particularly without talking, and obviously without looking. It practically started a fistfight on the ground afterwards. P.S. no instrument approaches for S37.

Straight in when you don't interfere with the pattern, or when you will easily come in behind or before the other aircraft and can safely gauge it, can be perfectly safe. I was out at Coatesville not too long ago when a guy was coming in on the VOR approach. He was straight in and slightly faster than I in the pattern. He called making sure he knew where I was, I called making sure I knew where he was. I told him I would extend downwind to make sure he made it through, and didn't turn base until we were abeam. Both knew what the other was doing, it was polite and cooperative and perfectly safe. No problem. And I was not in any way offended by his practice approach. He actually was concerned about fitting in with existant traffic, and I was more than willing to let him. Heck, we all gotta keep current, right?

Of course, when I am straight in on a practice approach is when I am most likely to use "any other traffic in the pattern please advise" (Jim ducks and runs for cover at this point.)

Jim G

 

[Bill]

Of course, when I am straight in on a practice approach is when I am most likely to use "any other traffic in the pattern please advise" (Jim ducks and runs for cover at this point.)

That phrase so grates on most people, but that is when you'd like to use it most. I just keep announcing on the way in, 5 mile final, 3 mile final, 1 mile final. And you hope other folks will speak up.

 

[poadeleted20]

That phrase so grates on most people, but that is when you'd like to use it most. I just keep announcing on the way in, 5 mile final, 3 mile final, 1 mile final. And you hope other folks will speak up.

I'm with Bill on this. If you make the normal call (e.g., "six west, landing"), and anyone's out there, they should respond by making their appropriate calls without the additional prompting. My concern with those calls is that some folks seem to act like if they don't hear someone on the radio, there's nobody else out there, which is a good way to get killed.

What gets my fur up on that call is when I call midfield downwind, and half a second later someone else calls "anyone in the pattern..." That tells me the caller just tuned in and made the call without even listening first to find out what's going on. And then to make it worse, five seconds after that, someone else makes the same call, etc, etc, and I end up landing without being able to make my base and final calls because folks are covering the freq with unnecessary calls when simply listening would have provided the information they sought -- denied to them by their own calls.

BTW, I once departed Millville NJ without making a single radio call -- MIV FSS was so busy giving "airport advisories" including ever bit of known traffic in a 10-mile radius (except, of course, me, because I never got a chance to get a word in edgewise, and I wasn't going to sit there waiting indefinitely at the end of the runway to call before taking off). Another time, flying in there, I was on short final before there was a break in the chatter (which included airplanes overflying at 2500 feet). My first call on CTAF was, "Millville Traffic, Tiger 22RL, short final, 28, full stop, Millville." MIV Radio said something about calling five miles out, and I said, "Well, this is the first time in the last five minutes that someone else wasn't talking." No reply from them to that, although frankly, my worse side got the best of me on that one -- I should have just shut up and landed instead of adding to the yammer.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was taking that a busy frequance would equated to a busy pattern and therefore it's too busy to be flying a non standard VFR approach to the airport.

The message I'm getting here is that you think folks flying a 45-downwind entry or going 'round the VFR pattern have some sort of priority over folks making other legal entries, which 14 CFR 91.119(g) says isn't so. If I misunderstand, please correct me.

 

[Missa]

The message I'm getting here is that you think folks flying a 45-downwind entry or going 'round the VFR pattern have some sort of priority over folks making other legal entries, which 14 CFR 91.119(g) says isn't so. If I misunderstand, please correct me.

I said nothing of the sort in my original post. The only legal priority at an uncontrolled field is given in the FARs as an aircraft under a declared emergency or by lower altitude (and you can't expect anyone to follow those; yes they are required to, but if you expect it you could be dead and then what’s the point if the other pilot was or was not following the legal rules). Other then that and 'fixed wing craft make all turns to the left’ an uncontrolled field is basically a free for all and with my previous statement it’s best viewed for all practical purposes as just a total free for all. However additionally we have these recommended rules (the AIM) which state how things SHOULD be done to expedite traffic flow and increase safety of all involved in the free for all around an uncontrolled field. In VMC anyone not following the recommended rules (without valid reason) is IMO a suspected rude idiot and I treat them as such and give them more room ( ‘cause I don’t want to die) so I have more time to react to any possible bad actions. This does slow down the traffic flow so if someone were to say I’m on a straight in, I start doubting their courtesy and/or abilities as a pilot because they are not following the recommended rules. However if they further explain that they have some sane reason for going against the published recommended rules ‘on a instrument approach’ I don’t have the same doubts… so it IMO the extra syllables on this radio call serve a purpose as an awareness that the person is not an rude idjit and I don’t have to be AS concerned about their ability to follow the rules (recommended or legal). That’s why I prefer that if the bandwidth is available, give the extra info for better situational awareness of all pilots in the free for all.

Missa