Why I hate fly-ins...

[flyingron]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

123.45 ... Am I the only one feeling compelled to say, "That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage." ?

May the schwartz be with you.

 

[Skylane81E]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

RE frequencies
I recall durning C2O ver 1.0 our assigned freq was helicopter air to air for the trip. Boy were we getting bitched at while trying to make the needed calls.

I finally piped up when someone shouted "DON'T YOU KNOW THIS IS AN ASSIGNED FREQUENCY?"

"yep, to us for the next 20 min!"

 

[Ark235B]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

So, I took Barney to a fly-in at Pocahontas, AR (M70) last Saturday.

That was your first mistake. We drive to them around here......

 

[alfadog]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Sounds like the OP got the experience that he was looking forward to. Funny how things in life work out that way.

 

[JoeSelch]

Sounds like the OP got the experience that he was looking forward to. Funny how things in life work out that way.

My thought exactly.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

I deny everything.

Welcome back. Don't be a stranger.

 

[airguy]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

We'll count me in as one of the people who will not use 123.45 and uses the proper frequency of 122.75 for air-to-air.

If you want to get real technical most of the people (non-atc) talking on aviation frequencies NOT in an aircraft - pilot or not are doing so illegally.

Let's make that AIRCRAFT and we'll agree. I use that band for hot-air ballooning frequently.

 

[N5922S]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Sounds to me like the OP has a cob up his butt. Reminds me of a woman who walks her dog in this neighborhood and gets a case of the vapors if another dog sniffs hers.

 

[ARFlyer]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

So, I took Barney to a fly-in at Pocahontas, AR (M70) last Saturday.

That was your first mistake. We drive to them around here......

Hahaha that is so true. The last fly-in I have flown to was one in Mountain View last fall. After about being t-boned in midair by a Cessna I have have driven to the last few.

On a side note you will never get me to fly into NLR (KORK) on a Saturday. I don't care how much money or about that gun against my head..... It's suicide!

 

[MadseasoN]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Sounds to me like the OP has a cob up his butt. Reminds me of a woman who walks her dog in this neighborhood and gets a case of the vapors if another dog sniffs hers.

Yeah but the woman in your neighborhood isn't going to die in a 120mph fireball because people don't know the rules/standards.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Legal or not I don't know, everybody I know uses it...well, better stated, I've never met anyone who had an objection to using it. Every 121 and 135 and 141 and 91 outfit I've ever worked for the pilots used fingers as the back channel to pass info.

That's my experience. But my experience is also that people can get in trouble for taking a reverse high speed without approval, so it appears we may have different background sets here too.

Only if your background set is "everyone does it (or doesn't do it), so it must be OK."

Others may make an attempt to understand and follow the regs.

I'm going to quote Bob Gardner from another board (our resident author of the excellent reference Say Again, Please -- thanks, Bob!)

AIM 4-1-11 lists the frequencies assigned for air-to-air. If a frequency is not listed there, it is not to be used for air-to-air...it's that simple. And 123.45 is assigned for use by all aircraft manufacturers, not just Boeing. It is also used by Oceanic Control on some trans-Atlantic routes.

As far as making up one's own frequency assignments, what is to stop "everyone around here" from using 120.3, 131.75, 119.2, etc etc etc...those are not air-to-air frequencies either.

End of rant. Thanks for the kind comments.

Bob Gardner

 

[steingar]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

If something the FCC doesn't like will increase safety, I'll bloody well use it. I really don't give a rat's six if some pencil necked bureaucrat in Washington gets his panties in a wad over it. Can't see why everyone is getting on their high horse about it.

I wouldn't be the first to use the frequency, but dang, if it's in use and can make things safer, the nearest ocean is well out of radio range.

 

[Matthew]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

I don't think I've monitored the published air-to-air freqs. My guess is they are probably much less crowded than 123.4 anyway.

 

[zaitcev]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Sounds like the OP got the experience that he was looking forward to. Funny how things in life work out that way.

You know what would make Tim's life more complete? Flour bombing with passes along a taxiway and parking. It was a riot, I loved it. Also, people were doing high-speed formation passes all day long. By the time I had my pancake full and left for home, they went for a 4-ship pass with 4 Bonanzas, with 2 Comanches right next. Also, I want to visit one fly-in sooo bad... I saw a video of one of locals rolling a Citation.

 

[N801BH]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Hmmmm..

"AIM 4-1-11 lists the frequencies assigned for air-to-air. If a frequency is not listed there, it is not to be used for air-to-air...it's that simple. And 123.45 is assigned for use by all aircraft manufacturers, not just Boeing. It is also used by Oceanic Control on some trans-Atlantic routes.

As far as making up one's own frequency assignments, what is to stop "everyone around here" from using 120.3, 131.75, 119.2, etc etc etc...those are not air-to-air frequencies either.

End of rant. Thanks for the kind comments."

Bob Gardner ..

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect... As a experimental homebuilt builder, I AM the( manufacturer), so as I read the rule I am allowed to use 123.45..:wink2:

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Wow maybe I should drive to fly-ins for now. That (and Sac's) experience sounds pretty busy. I do fly on busy Saturdays, no problem, but thanks for the reminder that if I decide to go to an event I should be extra alert for people doing unexpected things.

 

[timwinters]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

If something the FCC doesn't like will increase safety, I'll bloody well use it. I really don't give a rat's six if some pencil necked bureaucrat in Washington gets his panties in a wad over it. Can't see why everyone is getting on their high horse about it.

I wouldn't be the first to use the frequency, but dang, if it's in use and can make things safer, the nearest ocean is well out of radio range.

Make things safer for who? It's my understanding that this isn't merely an 'over the ocean' frequency and that it's used by aircraft mfgrs for flight testing comm. And we do have mfgrs around here including Boeing & Sabreliner. Do they use fingers? I have no idea. But I certainly wouldn't want to take a chance of screwing with someone.

Ahhh, shoulda just chopped the power abeam the #'s and landed way before he even turned base!

Never would have dawned on me to do that...and still won't. Although I definitely could have used the "lower altitude" rule!

Wow maybe I should drive to fly-ins for now. That (and Sac's) experience sounds pretty busy. I do fly on busy Saturdays, no problem, but thanks for the reminder that if I decide to go to an event I should be extra alert for people doing unexpected things.

Kim, it wasn't busy at all...just mismanaged.

 

[Captain]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

If a pilot ignores the tower and ground freqs then it's a little unfair to blame 'management'.

Entering the downwind abeam the landing numbers when known traffic has reported being established on the downwind is questionable.

The TPA for M70 is 1,200 feet, not 1,000. Many pilots would round that up to a cardinal altitude of 1,500. (My appoligies to those who feel the term 'cardinal' only applies to radials).

Im not casting stones here. Just making observations on the story as told.

 

[AcroBoy]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

I too have had mixed experiences at some flyins. Sometimes, I have gotten behind someone, and then on final see that they take the entire length of the runway at a walking speed, stacking up people in the pattern and forcing some to go around.

Then, while trying to fly a relatively tight pattern, have had people turn inside me on final, forcing yet another go around.

Have seen people run up their engines on the ramp with the tail only a few feet away from other planes.

Saw a news helicopter take out a paraglider with its rotor wash.

Have seen kids climbing on planes or running around on the ramp with airplanes taxiing around without adult supervision way too many times.

So yes, they can be enjoyable, but after a while, the fun part of it has been diminished by the added stress. It's kind of like a leisurely cruise down a country road on a warm afternoon in your car, versus fighting rush hour traffic in a big city.

 

[Tom-D]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

If you guys think flying into a meet/flyin, is tough try being a exhibitor of a antique aircraft at one.

I once caught a 8-9 year old girl standing on the wheel pant of this aircraft. the owner went absolutely rabid when it was pointed out to him.

 

[gismo]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Hmmmm..

"AIM 4-1-11 lists the frequencies assigned for air-to-air. If a frequency is not listed there, it is not to be used for air-to-air...it's that simple. And 123.45 is assigned for use by all aircraft manufacturers, not just Boeing. It is also used by Oceanic Control on some trans-Atlantic routes.

As far as making up one's own frequency assignments, what is to stop "everyone around here" from using 120.3, 131.75, 119.2, etc etc etc...those are not air-to-air frequencies either.

End of rant. Thanks for the kind comments."

Bob Gardner ..

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect... As a experimental homebuilt builder, I AM the( manufacturer), so as I read the rule I am allowed to use 123.45..:wink2:

Even the manufacturers have to apply for a station license with that frequency assigned to them.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

I too have had mixed experiences at some flyins. Sometimes, I have gotten behind someone, and then on final see that they take the entire length of the runway at a walking speed, stacking up people in the pattern and forcing some to go around.

YES!!! I was sent up from Sacramento to Astoria OR for a airshow, the field has no tower but they had a USAF Reserve unit operating a temporary facility, I was straight in for the longest ruinway, which I think is close to 6000ft, with every thing hanging out trying to keep separation from a 182 that was ahead of me. The tower asked him to keep maximum forward speed, he said "Roger" and then plopped down on the numbers, missed his turn, and proceeded roll the length of the runway.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

If a pilot ignores the tower and ground freqs then it's a little unfair to blame 'management'.

Entering the downwind abeam the landing numbers when known traffic has reported being established on the downwind is questionable.The TPA for M70 is 1,200 feet, not 1,000. Many pilots would round that up to a cardinal altitude of 1,500. (My appoligies to those who feel the term 'cardinal' only applies to radials).[\quote]

So, let me get this straight.

As a professional, you find it acceptable to chatter on unauthorized frequencies, fly non-standard pattern altitudes, and take "clearances" from some random bozo in a tent with a radio who has zero authority or responsibility.

Interesting.

 

[gismo]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

If a pilot ignores the tower and ground freqs then it's a little unfair to blame 'management'.

Entering the downwind abeam the landing numbers when known traffic has reported being established on the downwind is questionable.

The TPA for M70 is 1,200 feet, not 1,000. Many pilots would round that up to a cardinal altitude of 1,500. (My appoligies to those who feel the term 'cardinal' only applies to radials).

Im not casting stones here. Just making observations on the story as told.

For a different perspective:

AFaIK, there was no "tower" or "ground", just someone with a handheld pretending to be ATC.

If the conflicting traffic is in sight I don't get any heartburn over someone entering the downwind ahead of or behind that traffic as long as you're not interfering with said traffic. And I'm pretty sure Tim stated he entered the downwind at the recommended mid-field downwind location after aiming for some point a few miles due east of the departure end of the N-S runway.

I was assuming the 1000 and 1500 altitudes were AGL not MSL. I wonder which Tim meant?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Maybe you can start a trend by educating your cohorts on the approved air to air frequency: 122.75. You'll find that it's quite quiet as everyone else is using fingers.

Depends on where you are....here in SoCal, 122.75 gets a ton of use. Anyone who values their life is on it.

Only folks here that use 123.45 are the morons out talking to their buddies.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[timwinters]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Entering the downwind abeam the landing numbers when known traffic has reported being established on the downwind is questionable.

At over two miles from the field and still flying perpendicular to the runway, I wasn't close to entering the pattern yet. And, I was not abeam the landing numbers. I was 1/2 mile south and 2 miles east...the departure end of 18/36 on a day with a south breeze. Had I been a mile or less abeam the landing end then I'd agree with you, but I wasn't.

The TPA for M70 is 1,200 feet, not 1,000. Many pilots would round that up to a cardinal altitude of 1,500. (My appoligies to those who feel the term 'cardinal' only applies to radials).

You might want to check that again. Pattern altitude is 1,000'. And I don't round TPAs more than a few dozen feet. I would consider rounding a few hundred feet to be a dangerous pracice because it removes you from the "horizon view" of others and I really don't think that "many pilots" do this as you claim.

At least I hope they don't.

I was assuming the 1000 and 1500 altitudes were AGL not MSL. I wonder which Tim meant?

Actually, I meant MSL. M70s runway is about 270' MSL and TPA is 1000' MSL.

 

[Captain]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

You can be sure I didn't go off memory the TPA of M70.

Truth be told, I'd rather not be horizontal. Boats are horizontal and boats collide. If I'm a couple hundred feet above you then that's another layer of protection in my book. Add that to a minimum of 4 Mark I eyeballs (yes, I said it), radios, procedures, and TCAS and that's assuming an uncontrolled field. That's a bunch of protection. I always round up...fields at 1,100 then my pattern is 2,500.

Break,

I'm gonna say this once more. I have never offered support for or against 123.45, I'm just telling what everyone I've ever met has considered to be a chat line. I've never heard anybody ever suggest otherwise until this thread came up.

 

[Missa]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

I'm gonna say this once more. I have never offered support for or against 123.45, I'm just telling what everyone I've ever met has considered to be a chat line. I've never heard anybody ever suggest otherwise until this thread came up.

Obviously you don't read the AIM. For a professional I find this disturbing.

 

[Captain]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

You can be sure I didn't go off memory the TPA of M70.

Truth be told, I'd rather not be horizontal. Boats are horizontal and boats collide. If I'm a couple hundred feet above you then that's another layer of protection in my book. Add that to a minimum of 4 Mark I eyeballs (yes, I said it), radios, procedures, and TCAS and that's assuming an uncontrolled field. That's a bunch of protection. I always round up...fields at 1,100 then my pattern is 2,500.

Break,

I'm gonna say this once more. I have never offered support for or against 123.45, I'm just telling what everyone I've ever met has considered to be a chat line. I've never heard anybody ever suggest otherwise until this thread came up.

There, I bolded the important for you.

 

[alfadog]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Actually, I meant MSL. M70s runway is about 270' MSL and TPA is 1000' MSL.

Then you were as much a part of the problem as anyone.

According to the AIM and Advisory Circular AC 90-66A, TPA is normally 1000 feet AGL, not MSL. So if you are tootling along at 700 AGL, yes, the other traffic will be well above you.

On initial call, you ignore ground providing a perfectly legit unicom airport advisory service. There is no ASOS/AWOS there so I would expect unicom to provide the wind, runway in use (by others already there), and, optionally, any traffic they are aware of. Of course, I am still on the look-out. You ignore because everyone is an idiot except you.

If another pilot is flying an oversized pattern, I let them know that I will be executing a short approach inside of them and will not be a factor for them. They say thanks. But apparently you did not want to talk to others because they are all idiots except you so you are not using the radio to its best advantage. You are effectively NORDO. You could still cut in front of them NORDO and if they do not have to make any maneuver as a result then that is OK, too.

You refuse to use the ground frequency because it is not an authorized channel. OK, but what is also authorized is for you, as PIC, to take whatever action you need to to ensure the safety of your flight. So talk on the unauthorized channel and then tell the organizers that you are going to write yourself up for doing so. But refusing to communicate can constitute a safety hazard and is, IMO, the bigger sin. But you don't want to because they are idiots.

Like I said, you got exactly the experience you set yourself up for.

 

[flyingron]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

If a pilot ignores the tower and ground freqs then it's a little unfair to blame 'management'.

There's no "tower" involved here. Just some wannabes.

It's an issue I have at our local airfield fly in. It leads the idiot pilots into a false sense of security relying on the idiot guy on the ground.

Oddly enough, Oshkosh manages to get 12,000 planes on the ground without any aircraft transmitting. Once on the ground, we sort and park aircraft without using ANY radios between the ground crews and the aircraft.

 

[steingar]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Make things safer for who? It's my understanding that this isn't merely an 'over the ocean' frequency and that it's used by aircraft mfgrs for flight testing comm. And we do have mfgrs around here including Boeing & Sabreliner. Do they use fingers? I have no idea. But I certainly wouldn't want to take a chance of screwing with someone.

Yeah, because we all know that major manufacturers (who aren't within line of sight of yours truly) carry out all their flight testing on weekends.

Never would have dawned on me to do that...and still won't. Although I definitely could have used the "lower altitude" rule!

Pity some folks just can't think outside the box.

 

[Skip Miller]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

I haven't been to a fly-in like that, but I've heard about them. I dunno - either you have a tower and controller (even if it's temporary), or you don't. Let the pilots make their own decisions like they are supposed to - maybe relay wind info, but an amateur trying to sequence traffic just seems like a problem waiting to happen.

The worst I have experienced was a few years ago at Chrisfield, MD W41. They had some kid on CTAF who had his finger on the PTT about 80% of the time. Not only were his clearances to land etc completely unauthorized, but he blanked out the frequency so that pilots could not make the broadcasts they needed to... mayhem. -Skip

 

[steingar]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Oddly enough, Oshkosh manages to get 12,000 planes on the ground without any aircraft transmitting. Once on the ground, we sort and park aircraft without using ANY radios between the ground crews and the aircraft.

The Oshkosh model is to be emulated for certain. That said, they have the pick of the litter of professional controllers, a large well-trained volunteer staff, and a rich institutional wisdom. I doubt many other venues could match those resources.

I don't like the thought of amateur towers or anything else. Heck, if it looks that bad I'll go elsewhere, I've broken off landings because things looked too hairy. But if it's going on and I think I can make it in, I'll follow CRM and use the "tower" for whatever I can get. If nothing else, they can tell me the wind and which way everyone is landing. They can tell me some of the traffic. That puts me already ahead of the game.

If I'm behind someone too slow, too wide, whatever, I'll break off, go around, or go elsewhere. Isn't up to me to tell someone how to fly their landing. I'm not Odin's gift to aviation and don't know everything. The only thing I do know is I'd rather the other guys flew within their own comfort zone so they don't frak up and die.

 

[Matthew]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

The whole TPA issue is another thing. I've been to plenty of airports that have no published TPA in the A/FD, so my default is +1000. But at some of those airports, local convention is +800 and the local CFIs tell that to their students. But it never gets put into the A/FD. Just a pet peeve of mine - local conventions are to do one thing, but no one else knows about it.

I just looked at the A/FD for M70 - I shows elevation at 273 but no TPA. I would have been at 1270+/- in the pattern there.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

What bothers me the most about the whole thing is the 360 two miles from the runway, but then you admitted that wasn't really the best thing to do.

 

[timwinters]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Then you were as much a part of the problem as anyone.

According to the AIM and Advisory Circular AC 90-66A, TPA is normally 1000 feet AGL, not MSL. So if you are tootling along at 700 AGL, yes, the other traffic will be well above you.

According to the AIM, TPC is anywhere between 600' and 1500' AGL and "1000' AGL is recommended pattern altitude unless established otherwise". Both the AOPA printouts and Foreflight list M70's TPA as 1000' MSL. But, no, the AF/D doesn't list a pattern altitude.

When I first saw the 172, my initial thought was that he was flying a 1000' AGL pattern. But then, after looking closer, I could see that (as I said in my original post) he was at least 500' above me (and maybe more like 6 to 700').

If a pilot ignores the tower and ground freqs then it's a little unfair to blame 'management'.

Everyone's right that it's not smart to ignore help offered and I probably didn't use the right term. I didn't completely ignore them (as in, I did switch to ground when asked to do so). More aptly put: I heard them, I just didn't rely on anything that they said and instead attempted to confirm all information using the same tools I would use had they not been there.

Pity some folks just can't think outside the box.

I don't think I'll ever cut someone off no matter how big of a pattern they're flying. That's not only impolite, but could be detrimental to their safety and mine.

What bothers me the most about the whole thing is the 360 two miles from the runway, but then you admitted that wasn't really the best thing to do.

Huh? I never said it wasn't the best thing to do and don't see an issue with it at all. But I'm always willing to learn if someone has a reason why a 360 for separation shouldn't be executed 1 to 2 miles outside the pattern confines. As an aside, in my case, it's never a true 360, it is (4) 90* turns. Look right, clear, turn 90, lift wing, look right, clear, turn 90, etc.

So, let me get this straight.

As a professional, you find it acceptable to chatter on unauthorized frequencies, fly non-standard pattern altitudes, and take "clearances" from some random bozo in a tent with a radio who has zero authority or responsibility.

El Paso, don't screw this up. The more I read the more I get the feeling that we're all watching "Tony Air: The Sequel". Those of you who were around the AOPA forums a couple of years ago know quite well how entertaining the original "Tony Air" movie was. I have confidence that the sequel will be just as entertaining if everyone just sits back and watches it to the end.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

If you guys think flying into a meet/flyin, is tough try being a exhibitor of a antique aircraft at one.

I once caught a 8-9 year old girl standing on the wheel pant of this aircraft. the owner went absolutely rabid when it was pointed out to him.

What the hell were they thinking....putting that ugly ass pointy spinner on a '48??????

 

[AdamZ]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Man "Tony Air" brings back memories!

 

[steingar]

Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

I don't think I'll ever cut someone off no matter how big of a pattern they're flying. That's not only impolite, but could be detrimental to their safety and mine.

Like I said, some folks can't think outside the box.