The clear answer is that you can’t possibly understand the answer.I used to be confused on the proper use of certain aviation communication phraseology. Thanks so much everyone for clarifying things for me. I now have absolute clarity.
The clear answer is that you can’t possibly understand the answer.I used to be confused on the proper use of certain aviation communication phraseology. Thanks so much everyone for clarifying things for me. I now have absolute clarity.
The clear answer is that you can’t possibly understand the answer.
Okay.... as a corporate pilot departing a quiet pattern, before take off I ask “any traffic in the area please advise”. I know I’m departing to the SW (whatever) and a slow C152 is far from making a call. The aoproaching student has no idea about a jet approaching them at 250 kts (almost 300 mph. Closure rate at more than 1/2 the speed of sound).So provide a single example where simply stating your position isn’t better. Appeal to authority fallacies don’t count.
The people who have ARGUMENTS on CTAF are much worse, IMO. (Fortunately I don't hear that very often.)I hate those who go over the grocery list on CTAF.
Doesn’t work. Stating you are a jet and departing to the south west accomplishes the same thing, and gives the other pilot useful information, unlike your request devoid of info.Okay.... as a corporate pilot departing a quiet pattern, before take off I ask “any traffic in the area please advise”. I know I’m departing to the SW (whatever) and a slow C152 is far from making a call. The aoproaching student has no idea about a jet approaching them at 250 kts (almost 300 mph. Closure rate at more than 1/2 the speed of sound).
I believe me, as a professional pilot, has the responsibility to at least try to learn of traffic in the area and might be in our way.
More examples?
Doesn’t work?Doesn’t work. Stating you are a jet and departing to the south west accomplishes the same thing, and gives the other pilot useful information, unlike your request devoid of info.
As stated above, the 150 isn’t going to consider himself relevant because you said atitppa. If he didn’t before, he won’t with a vague atitppa, but he might if you tell him something useful.
Try again?
Your appeal to authority is once again meaningless. You’ve not shown how providing zero info and only a request is better than simply providing info.Doesn’t work?
Just how long have you been doing this?
Me: 30 years and 20,000 hours.
Granted, You could be more experienced and have formed other viewpoints.
Truly trying to understand what you are asking.Your appeal to authority is once again meaningless. You’ve not shown how providing zero info and only a request is better than simply providing info.
Well that depends on their previous calls.Can we add an 8th? It's exhausting to hear "on the go" when somebody is taking off
Why? Just a courtesy really for anyone else in the patch that works in conjunction with other radio calls. I don’t view it any different than saying the word ‘take-off’.Can we add an 8th? It's exhausting to hear "on the go" when somebody is taking off
I recognize that this probably does not warrant the importance that we're giving it, but here's what I don't get: I'm assuming that your atitapa calls have resulted in replies. How do you know that those same pilots would not have replied to a simple position-and-intentions report?Okay.... as a corporate pilot departing a quiet pattern, before take off I ask “any traffic in the area please advise”. I know I’m departing to the SW (whatever) and a slow C152 is far from making a call. The aoproaching student has no idea about a jet approaching them at 250 kts (almost 300 mph. Closure rate at more than 1/2 the speed of sound).
I believe me, as a professional pilot, has the responsibility to at least try to learn of traffic in the area and might be in our way.
More examples?
Can we add an 8th? It's exhausting to hear "on the go" when somebody is taking off
Okay.... as a corporate pilot departing a quiet pattern, before take off I ask “any traffic in the area please advise”. I know I’m departing to the SW (whatever) and a slow C152 is far from making a call. The aoproaching student has no idea about a jet approaching them at 250 kts (almost 300 mph. Closure rate at more than 1/2 the speed of sound).
I believe me, as a professional pilot, has the responsibility to at least try to learn of traffic in the area and might be in our way.
More examples?
Does all this stuff really bother you guys that much? I thought the original post title (with 'Deadly" in it) was going to be about radio usage that leads to dangerous scenarios playing out. In reality, only aaattttiiiipppaaa (or whatever it is) seems to be specifically recommended against.
I think I am going to start using "With You", "Last Call", "Tally Ho", "Negative Ghost Rider", "Still looking", "No Joy", "Bingo Fuel" and announce every single taxi intention at the non-towered fields...just to drive you crazy.
Why? Just a courtesy really for anyone else in the patch that works in conjunction with other radio calls. I don’t view it any different than saying the word ‘take-off’.
Nope. The FBO UNICOM station licnese permits them as a ground station to use that frequency. The legitimate aviation station licenses (or in these days the exemption that covers them) allows them to converse on the frequency (which indeed *IS* shared, not just with users of that one airport but other airports around that have the same assigned CTAF).And usually licensed to the FBO by the FCC
I don't. I consider it a sign of them being lazy, self-centered louts, who feel they are above following the safe and effective published procedures.It's hard for us slow guys not feel like an atitapa call from a fast mover is essentially a call for us to get out of the way
Agreed.I don't. I consider it a sign of them being lazy, self-centered louts, who feel they are above following the safe and effective published procedures.
I don't. I consider it a sign of them being lazy, self-centered louts, who feel they are above following the safe and effective published procedures.
Don’t plow into the pattern until you have time to monitor? Adjust your approach to give you more time. Trusting everyone else to get back to you quick enough can’t be the safest way to do things.Ron,
I posted a scenario in #179.
What would you suggest is an effective answer?
Tim
At work it is expected to use "over" and "out" in every transmission. Then in the plane I'll accidentally say them to ground or FSS till I revert to pilot speak. So embarrassing.Heh heh I flagrantly violate the "with you" rule but so do the big guys.
Note that "over" and "out" are defined in the Pilot-Controller Glossary but nobody ever uses them.
At work it is expected to use "over" and "out" in every transmission. Then in the plane I'll accidentally say them to ground or FSS till I revert to pilot speak. So embarrassing.
Also doesn't help that work has you say "who is talking" then "who you're talking to". It's retarded, you always end up saying the first transmission twice because they weren't listening/ expecting your call. The aviation way is much better.
You are incorrect. Many times this is the fbo published frequency. These calls need to be made. Sorry to disrupt your world.
Source: corporate pilot (past life) 20 years.
Speaking of artillery barrages, that's what this thread is beginning to sound like!Well, yes, I used 'over' and 'out' in military radio transmissions as well.
I think a lot of pilots don't realize that 'say again' is a carryover from military radio procedures where 'repeat' has one and only one meaning - you wish to fire another artillery barrage.
Perhaps you should read a bit slower.So again, if there are multiple planes "in the area," how do those pilots know which order they should answer you in? Most likely they will answer together, blocking part of each transmission, and you won't learn anything. Or they won't say anything, each waiting for the other to talk first, and again you learn nothing.
Once that's done, I'll answer and call you stupid for ignoring the FAA's radio advice, and I'll talk r-e-a-l . . . s-l-o-w, so's you kin understand what I'm a-sayin'.
So maybe the CAA / FAA's almost century of experience has taught them more than you've learned in your 20 years? But just carry on with your anti-authority attitude, because you so obviously know everthing. After all, you done told us so.
I don’t. That said, there are times I find the call beneficial to help give me the big picture of where traffic may be.I recognize that this probably does not warrant the importance that we're giving it, but here's what I don't get: I'm assuming that your atitapa calls have resulted in replies. How do you know that those same pilots would not have replied to a simple position-and-intentions report?
No option when in the SFRA, under most class Bravos.Don’t plow into the pattern until you have time to monitor? Adjust your approach to give you more time. Trusting everyone else to get back to you quick enough can’t be the safest way to do things.
No option when in the SFRA, under most class Bravos.
Then when you leave the major metro areas and head further out with marginal weather you get the following. I have been headed to an airport in the smoky mountains with traffic in pattern, class G airspace, a Citation in trail, and marginal weather.
Tim
One would THINK. But Oceanside here gets a suspicious amount of VFR traffic spending the night when CRQ goes IFR. The notes in our schedule master say something to the effect of "left plane at Oceanside, will grab in the morning, CRQ IFR"If the field is IFR, there shouldn't be any traffic to worry about much
Please don't take the runway. The next plane needs it.Bob,
In your example regarding #7, when you announce you're taking the runway
My local Class D shuts down at night and it can be funny listening to the airline 737 making a CTAF call since they do it so rarely.ETA: Now that I’m out of corporate aviation I rarely, if ever, go to uncontrolled airports (yes, I know... non towered airports). ATITPPA is a thing of the past for me.