The 7 Deadly Sins of Radio Communications

Kritchlow said:
Perhaps you should read a bit slower.
As I said, sometime it’s aporopriate, and sometime it’s not.
Click to expand...

The problem is, it's never appropriate:
AIM Section 4-1-9(g)
Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF. Traffic in the area please advise' is not a recognized Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used under any condition.

As others have stated, you saying you're departing to the SE should prompt anyone SE of the airport to let you know they're there.
 
Lowflynjack said:
The problem is, it's never appropriate:
AIM Section 4-1-9(g)
Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF. Traffic in the area please advise' is not a recognized Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used under any condition.

As others have stated, you saying you're departing to the SE should prompt anyone SE of the airport to let you know they're there.
Click to expand...
I’m aware. Still does not change my opinion.
 
Lowflynjack said:
That's okay! I'll continue to ignore that call!
Click to expand...

As I do. I'll just make my next position report as SOP. Those wanting to know if I am in the pattern will find out... they'll just have to wait. I was on a 5 mile final at John Tune when a Citation called in at 10 miles. I didn't yield but did keep my speed up. He can slow her down or go around.
 
Mooney Fan said:
As I do. I'll just make my next position report as SOP. Those wanting to know if I am in the pattern will find out... they'll just have to wait.
Click to expand...
Agree. I'm going to make the calls the FAA recommends. 10 miles out, downwind, base, final, and clear of the runway. If I'm in a slow plane, I'll add a 5 mile call. Now if someone makes a call that they're 15 miles to West and that's were I am, I'll quickly let them know. Them adding ATITAPA only slows down my response.
 
Mooney Fan said:
As I do. I'll just make my next position report as SOP. Those wanting to know if I am in the pattern will find out... they'll just have to wait.
Click to expand...
That’s fine... just hope I don’t run you over in the mean time.
 
Kritchlow said:
That’s fine... just hope I don’t run you over in the mean time.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be most unfortunate. They could attach the NTSB report to your epitaph.. 'Pilot failed to see and avoid'

But thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on my 6
 
Kritchlow said:
That’s fine... just hope I don’t run you over in the mean time.
Click to expand...
I think that's the point we're trying to make... I'm not going to let you run into me. In your example, you say you're taking off to the SW in a jet. You make the call and then say ATITAPA. If I'm SW, I'm going to tell you, you don't have to add this part. If I'm to the NW and I'm 12 miles out, I'm not making a call until I'm 10 miles out as normal. That's why the FAA says it's an unnecessary call. To me it just wastes time on an already congested frequency in our area.

It's one of those things people will never agree on... religion, politics, extenders on 140 gear, partial-power take offs, and ATITAPA!
 
Mooney Fan said:
Yes, that would be most unfortunate. They could attach the NTSB report to your epitaph.. 'Pilot failed to see and avoid'

But thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on my 6
Click to expand...
Right. I’m not beyond making a mistake for certain, especially spotting a small airplane.
That’s why (at times) I find it useful to gather more information.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I think that's the point we're trying to make... I'm not going to let you run into me. In your example, you say you're taking off to the SW in a jet. You make the call and then say ATITAPA. If I'm SW, I'm going to tell you, you don't have to add this part. If I'm to the NW and I'm 12 miles out, I'm not making a call until I'm 10 miles out as normal. That's why the FAA says it's an unnecessary call. To me it just wastes time on an already congested frequency in our area.

It's one of those things people will never agree on... religion, politics, extenders on 140 gear, partial-power take offs, and ATITAPA!
Click to expand...
I may not hear you. We do have a second radio for sure, but that’s about the time I’m checking in with ATC.
There are unlimited scenarios we could banter over, and every situation is different.

I equate it to Mr X driving with his lights off on purpose. Nobody needs to see him, as he can see and avoid everyone else.
But if a stretch, but a general thought.
 
Kritchlow said:
That’s fine... just hope I don’t run you over in the mean time.
Click to expand...
Do you include a position-and-intentions report with your atitapa request? If so, I'll make an immediate report if I'm in a position to become a factor for you. Otherwise, I'll wait until my next recommended report, because I don't want to block a call from someone who IS in a position to be a factor.

But I would have done that anyway, with or without the atitapa.
 
Kritchlow said:
I equate it to Mr X driving with his lights off on purpose.
Click to expand...
There's the rub. Everybody can have lights on without interfering with the others; but only one can talk on CTAF at a time. Unless, of course, someone at FL380 is doing business with an FBO at an airport 75 miles away that happens to share the same CTAF. Then nobody can talk.
 
Pilawt said:
There's the rub. Everybody can have lights on without interfering with the others; but only one can talk on CTAF at a time. Unless, of course, someone at FL380 is doing business with an FBO at an airport 75 miles away that happens to share the same CTAF. Then nobody can talk.
Click to expand...

If the pilot doing business with the FBO is 75 miles away, the inverse square law says that he's not going to block any local transmissions.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the pilot doing business with the FBO is 75 miles away, the inverse square law says that he's not going to block any local transmissions.
Click to expand...

You apparently aren't familiar with line of sight and VHF communications. A pilot in the flight levels can be received for over 100 miles, which has been the point of this conversation. I recently heard one smart guy going into an airport that was nearly 200 NM away arranging for hotel transportation when he arrived, and letting them know he is 15 out.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the pilot doing business with the FBO is 75 miles away, the inverse square law says that he's not going to block any local transmissions.
Click to expand...
When KVUO (Vancouver WA) and KDLS (The Dalles OR) shared CTAF 123.0, bizjets at high altitudes enroute to KDLS often prevented KVUO traffic from making pattern calls.

The airports are 63 nm apart and on opposite sides of the Cascades mountain range.
 
Palmpilot said:
Do you include a position-and-intentions report with your atitapa request? If so, I'll make an immediate report if I'm in a position to become a factor for you. Otherwise, I'll wait until my next recommended report, because I don't want to block a call from someone who IS in a position to be a factor.

But I would have done that anyway, with or without the atitapa.
Click to expand...
In the day, the general call would be something like this... (keep in mind I’m off the ctaf to get IFR clearance)...

“XYX traffic, Citation departing 23 for westbound depararture. Traffic please advise.”

If there was obviously a lot of traffic in the pattern I would refrain, wait a while, and “learn” the pattern. If it seemed quiet I would likely make that call just in case I missed the straggler.

Further more, if two keyed up at the same time I knew there were multiple targets. So, yes... the jumble can provide info.
 
Pilawt said:
There's the rub. Everybody can have lights on without interfering with the others; but only one can talk on CTAF at a time. Unless, of course, someone at FL380 is doing business with an FBO at an airport 75 miles away that happens to share the same CTAF. Then nobody can talk.
Click to expand...
Give it up. 123.0 is a Unicom frequency.
 
No frequency is safe from interference. There just aren't any that get exclusive use like that. I was on center one day and we were hearing some recorded message we couldn't make out (through some freak of propagation). Eventually, I was able to discern it as the Vero Beach ATIS, several states away. Normally not a problem, but it was coming through pretty well.
 
midwestpa24 said:
You apparently aren't familiar with line of sight and VHF communications. A pilot in the flight levels can be received for over 100 miles, which has been the point of this conversation. I recently heard one smart guy going into an airport that was nearly 200 NM away arranging for hotel transportation when he arrived, and letting them know he is 15 out.
Click to expand...
You apparently aren't familiar with the inverse square law. Given equal radiated power, a plane that is in the vicinity of the airport can be heard over one that is far away that is transmitting at the same time. Both are line of sight, so that part is a wash.
 
Pilawt said:
When KVUO (Vancouver WA) and KDLS (The Dalles OR) shared CTAF 123.0, bizjets at high altitudes enroute to KDLS often prevented KVUO traffic from making pattern calls.

The airports are 63 nm apart and on opposite sides of the Cascades mountain range.
Click to expand...
A distant aircraft prevents you from making a call only if you wait for it to stop transmitting before pressing the push-to-talk button.
 
Pilawt said:
Hm. Okay. But the A/FD-Chart Supplement, just for the State of Arizona, for example, lists 40 uncontrolled fields that have a single frequency listed as "CTAF/UNICOM". Some of them are even 123.0.
Click to expand...
Yes.... that’s my point. It may suck and be congested, but Unicom frequency is not solely CTAF. Apoarantly people here don’t want to give any credit to corporate aviation, but these calls are needed. Services are set up ahead of time, but calls still need to be made to ensure the car is on the ramp, fuel truck is ready, catering ready, and so forth.
Some here (most) don’t seem to like that, but that IS the system.
 
Palmpilot said:
You apparently aren't familiar with the inverse square law. Given equal radiated power, a plane that is in the vicinity of the airport can be heard over one that is far away that is transmitting at the same time. Both are line of sight, so that part is a wash.
Click to expand...
Yup. Was going to post this exact thing (although I admit I didn’t know the formal name).
 
Kritchlow said:
Further more, if two keyed up at the same time I knew there were multiple targets. So, yes... the jumble can provide info.
Click to expand...
I consider knowing where traffic is to be more valuable than knowing that there is traffic in unknown locations.
 
Palmpilot said:
I consider knowing where traffic is to be more valuable than knowing that there is traffic in unknown locations.
Click to expand...
Yes.... but if two key up that us a flag to step back and wait.
 
Palmpilot said:
You apparently aren't familiar with the inverse square law. Given equal radiated power, a plane that is in the vicinity of the airport can be heard over one that is far away that is transmitting at the same time. Both are line of sight, so that part is a wash.
Click to expand...
The bizjet at FL380 inbound to Airport 'A' is not directly above airport 'A'. It might be directly above Airport 'B', 75 miles away, that happens to share the same CTAF.
 
Pilawt said:
The bizjet at FL380 inbound to Airport 'A' is not directly above airport 'A'. It might be directly above Airport 'B', 75 miles away, that happens to share the same CTAF.
Click to expand...
I agree that that could be a problem for traffic in the pattern at airport B.
 
Palmpilot said:
When that happens, how do you know when it is safe to proceed?
Click to expand...
Not by radio communications alone, but I suspect you already knew that and trying to bait me into an unwinnable situation.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not by radio communications alone, but I suspect you already knew that and trying to bait me into an unwinnable situation.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to do anything of the kind.

Personally, I don't see anything so terrible about including the atitapa as long as you also include your position and intentions in the transmission. I doubt that the atitapa portion of the call causes anyone who would not otherwise have done so to tell you where they are, but I don't see it as some kind of major transgression to include it. I'm not sure why the author of that passage in the AIM got so worked up about it.

However, I will continue to refrain from responding to it with extra transmissions unless I'm in a position to become a factor, because of the possibility of blocking the ONE transmission that the "atitapa" pilot most needs to hear.
 
Kritchlow said:
Some here (most) don’t seem to like that, but that IS the system.
Click to expand...
True, but a potentially dangerous system. My concern, from having heard several of these conversations drag on unnecessarily, is that some of the participants don't seem to appreciate the effect they're having on other airports.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
5 miles is still outside the traffic area. Even if I'm not on an an approach, I'll announce once at 10, once at 5 and spend the rest of the time listening until on the 45 or whatever entry.
Click to expand...

Related to this, I've begun adding how many minutes out we are when flying the jet. I think that's probably more helpful for other traffic that may be heading to the same airport. So a call 20 miles SE may sound like we're a long ways out but when I add "landing in 8 minutes" they get a sense of how much of a factor I might be for them.
 
Pilawt said:
True, but a potentially dangerous system. My concern, from having heard several of these conversations drag on unnecessarily, is that some of the participants don't seem to appreciate the effect they're having on other airports.
Click to expand...
Well only speaking for myself and my crew, we would never intentionally interfere with ctaf communications. Has it ever happened? Perhaps.
It’s usually a quick call with what we need (mostly verification, but some things you cannot predict), lasting 10-15 seconds at most.
I think it’s way overblown tbh.
 
flyingron said:
TRAFFIC IN SIGHT is the accepted form and only has one more syllable. But, you're right that doesn't bother me as much as all the things that people say when they mean "NEGATIVE CONTACT."
Click to expand...
My CFI always said, "No Joy"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top