Stupid pilots

sba55 said:
Interesting, that example doesn't strike me as being very informative. There's no information about the runway or entry he'll be flying, the bit about having the numbers is useless to anyone but himself, and whether or not he's VFR doesn't make a difference, either.....odd.

-Felix
Click to expand...

Regarding "the numbers" -- there are some towers in Canada (e.g. Penticton) which are staffed but seem more like unicom on steriods than your typical tower. You'd address these towers as xxxx Radio (e.g. Penticton Radio). It may be more informative in that sense (so they don't need to give them to you again).

Sam (flew one time to Canada and it was to Penticton! see avatar)
 
Last edited:
Sam Doolittle said:
Regarding "the numbers" -- there are some towers in Canada (e.g. Penticton) which are staffed but seem more like unicom on steriods than your typical tower. You'd address these towers as xxxx Radio (e.g. Penticton Radio). It may be more informative in that sense (so they don't need to give them to you again).

Sam (flew one time to Canada and it was too Penticton!)
Click to expand...
Makes sense.

Hey Sam, what are you doing here? You're supposed to be out flying! :cheerswine:
 
sba55 said:
Makes sense.

Hey Sam, what are you doing here? You're supposed to be out flying! :cheerswine:
Click to expand...

I did! I did! First non-CFI-accompanied ride in the Lance. I'm a free man!
 
Sam Doolittle said:
Regarding "the numbers" -- there are some towers in Canada (e.g. Penticton) which are staffed but seem more like unicom on steriods than your typical tower. You'd address these towers as xxxx Radio (e.g. Penticton Radio). It may be more informative in that sense (so they don't need to give them to you again).
Click to expand...
Penticton doesn't have a tower. There is a MF (mandatory frequency) that you use to talk to the Canadian version of FSS. This is similar to the way FSSs were in the states back in the old days. The difference is that the Canadians do a little more "controlling" than the old FSSs did, at least that has been my impression.

http://www.pilotinfo.ca/CAMS.html?arpt_ident=CA23507
 
sba55 said:
Interesting, that example doesn't strike me as being very informative. There's no information about the runway or entry he'll be flying, the bit about having the numbers is useless to anyone but himself, and whether or not he's VFR doesn't make a difference, either.....odd.

-Felix
Click to expand...
"Having the numbers" means to me that they have the one minute weather, ie, AWOS/ASOS.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
"Having the numbers" means to me that they have the one minute weather, ie, AWOS/ASOS.
Click to expand...
Right, but who is that helpful to someone else in the pattern? Or are we talking about a call at one of those airports "controlled" by a FSS?

Sam Doolittle said:
I did! I did! First non-CFI-accompanied ride in the Lance. I'm a free man!
Click to expand...
Awesome. Congrats!

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
Right, but who is that helpful to someone else in the pattern? Or are we talking about a call at one of those airports "controlled" by a FSS?

-Felix
Click to expand...
As a pilot when I hear someone say they have the numbers I expect they have at least the correct altimeter setting. Additionally, I could expect them to decide on the rwy in use...or that rwy which makes sense according to the winds. It tells me that perhaps he has been forward thinking in his plan of arriving. RE: the correct altimeter setting, I would know where to look--high or low--for him. It's not much I grant you, but every little bit helps. Sort of like the tenor of his voice....

Beyond that it means nothing to me. Actually, if there is also an ATIS, for a pilot to say he has the numbers insinuates that he was lazy, perhaps reluctant to talk to ATC. In that case, watch out.

It depends...........
 
Dan Thomas said:


If you are announcing your position, anyone who's paying attention will hear it, assess whether you're a threat to them, and tell you so. Asking if there's any conflicting traffic adds absolutely nothing to safety.


Dan
Click to expand...


That would be in an ideal world.
 
Everskyward said:
Penticton doesn't have a tower. There is a MF (mandatory frequency) that you use to talk to the Canadian version of FSS. This is similar to the way FSSs were in the states back in the old days. The difference is that the Canadians do a little more "controlling" than the old FSSs did, at least that has been my impression.

http://www.pilotinfo.ca/CAMS.html?arpt_ident=CA23507
Click to expand...

Yeah, most likely a remote radio outlet to flight service. Open/close flight plans, keep track of traffic, sequence IFR, etc. They even track enroute aircraft when ATC can't talk to them.
 
sba55 said:
Right, but who is that helpful to someone else in the pattern? Or are we talking about a call at one of those airports "controlled" by a FSS?


Awesome. Congrats!

-Felix
Click to expand...

Both planes having the same altimeter setting is pretty important if your flying close, like in a pattern. When I work (aerial observer, not pilot) with other aircraft around a forest fire, first thing we do is match altimeter settings.
 
Everskyward said:
Penticton doesn't have a tower. There is a MF (mandatory frequency) that you use to talk to the Canadian version of FSS. This is similar to the way FSSs were in the states back in the old days. The difference is that the Canadians do a little more "controlling" than the old FSSs did, at least that has been my impression.

http://www.pilotinfo.ca/CAMS.html?arpt_ident=CA23507
Click to expand...

OK. But the folks on the other side of the MF happen to be in a building that is very tall and right on the airport.:D But you're right, not a 'tower' in the sense we use it. I think it did used to be formally staffed but was then cut back to the MF model.
 
sba55 said:
Interesting, that example doesn't strike me as being very informative. There's no information about the runway or entry he'll be flying, the bit about having the numbers is useless to anyone but himself, and whether or not he's VFR doesn't make a difference, either.....odd.

-Felix
Click to expand...

No. In Canada the uncontrolled aerodrome approach procedure, if there's no other traffic reporting so that the pilot can determine what runway is in use, is to overfly the airport at 1500 AGL and get a look at the sock, figure out what runway and circuit he'll be using, fly to the "upwind" side of the runway (the side away from the downwind leg) and descend to 1000 AGL over there, then recross and join downwind in the middle of the leg. If the pilot knows what runway he'll use (strong wind apparent, say, from dust or smoke or flags or whatever, or someone already in the circuit using a particular runway) he may join straight into the downwind "only if no conflict exists." So for hime to to say what runway or entry he'll be using when he's still miles out is impractical or impossible.
The pilot needs an up-to-date issue of the CFS so he knows about peculiarities of that airport (like ours, which has had a RH circuit for one runway instead of the standard LH, has had it for 13 years, and we still get guys coming straight in and joining LH downwind for that runway and creating havoc and no little hazard to airplanes descending on that side or to others on base) and he needs to know the uncontrolled aerodrome procedure published by Transport Canada, which many seem to have been deprived of during their training. Here it is:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/RAC/4-1.htm#4-5
The above material is "recommended" but just see what happens if you cause a problem. The laws regarding it are here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/602.htm#602_96

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
No. In Canada the uncontrolled aerodrome approach procedure, if there's no other traffic reporting so that the pilot can determine what runway is in use, is to overfly the airport at 1500 AGL and get a look at the sock, figure out what runway and circuit he'll be using, fly to the "upwind" side of the runway (the side away from the downwind leg) and descend to 1000 AGL over there, then recross and join downwind in the middle of the leg. If the pilot knows what runway he'll use (strong wind apparent, say, from dust or smoke or flags or whatever, or someone already in the circuit using a particular runway) he may join straight into the downwind "only if no conflict exists." So for hime to to say what runway or entry he'll be using when he's still miles out is impractical or impossible.
The pilot needs an up-to-date issue of the CFS so he knows about peculiarities of that airport (like ours, which has had a RH circuit for one runway instead of the standard LH, has had it for 13 years, and we still get guys coming straight in and joining LH downwind for that runway and creating havoc and no little hazard to airplanes descending on that side or to others on base) and he needs to know the uncontrolled aerodrome procedure published by Transport Canada, which many seem to have been deprived of during their training. Here it is:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/RAC/4-1.htm#4-5
The above material is "recommended" but just see what happens if you cause a problem. The laws regarding it are here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/602.htm#602_96

Dan
Click to expand...
Hey Dan,

Cool, that's good information to have. So it sounds like there are no AWOS/ASOS installations? Or are they just really uncommon?

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
Hey Dan,

Cool, that's good information to have. So it sounds like there are no AWOS/ASOS installations? Or are they just really uncommon?

-Felix
Click to expand...

There are a few at smaller fields. At some MF airports there'll be ATIS, as there is a big airports.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top