why we enter on the 45

[azure]

Sometimes that is indeed the case... I'm not too shy to advertise "hey, I'm new on the freq. where's everyone at so I know the picture".... Of course not quite in those words. Conversely, I'm relieved when a new person on the freq wants to know where I'm at. Good to hear other pilots who want good situational awareness.

No doubt, but I was taught to assume that the new guy on the freq has NOT heard my or anyone else's position reports. I respond exactly the same way regardless of whether he says ATITPPA or not. I don't even pay any more special attention to the FACs than I otherwise would - even though that's where most traffic with a *legitimate* reason to not have been listening on the freq would be coming from - because unless he includes that information in his position report I have no way of knowing why he hasn't been listening. In fact for all I know he's actually been listening for the last 20 minutes and just has a bad habit on the radio - but I never assume that.

 

[RoscoeT]

As a professional pilot, I would like ATC or myself to judge my spacing on other aircraft. To rely on a new 20 hour solo pilot on his first cross country to provide my seperation is derelict of duty IMO. To purposely ignore such a request is not only immature, but does nothing except reduce safety.

Never thought I would see the day in aviation where pilots are ridiculed for wanting to know where the traffic is.

I don't follow. What does ATC have to do with ATITAPA?

ATITAPA and loud pipes save lives!

 

[Kritchlow]

I don't follow. What does ATC have to do with ATITAPA?

ATITAPA and loud pipes save lives!

Nothing.. I'm just saying I don't want anyone other than ATC or myself making seperation decisions. If I did not do a ATITPPA as you suggest, I'm blind and giving the guy on final that decision.

 

[dmspilot]

You can't look out the window and check for aircraft on final before you takeoff?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Simple... If someone happened to be on final or tight base that I did not see, I would be made aware of that traffic. Not a guarantee, but one more layer of protection. I don't understand the hatred of this call. It seems MORE than justified.

Again, the departure call accomplishes the same thing. All ATITPA does is add superfluous words to the frequency.

 

[Kritchlow]

Again, the departure call accomplishes the same thing. All ATITPA does is add superfluous words to the frequency.

No it doesn't.. If I know where the guy is than I can make an informed decision. If I rely on the other guy, than HE is making that decision.

 

[Kritchlow]

You can't look out the window and check for aircraft on final before you takeoff?

Of course. Maybe you're better than me, but I don't always see all traffic immediately. I try to use a few layers.. Eyes, Ears, tcas..

Do you suggest I don't take a look at my tcas before launching or entering a pattern simply because I should solely rely on the other guy to determine if there is a conflict?

 

[Palmpilot]

No it doesn't.. If I know where the guy is than I can make an informed decision. If I rely on the other guy, than HE is making that decision.

You're relying on the other guy in both cases.

 

[Kritchlow]

You're relying on the other guy in both cases.

To an extent. It's not perfect, but it does add one more layer.

 

[Everskyward]

No it doesn't.. If I know where the guy is than I can make an informed decision. If I rely on the other guy, than HE is making that decision.

You're still relying on the other guy to make the call, and they may be someone who goes off the deep and and refuses to answer when they hear ATITAPA. You can't control what others do or say.

Although I don't make that call, I don't care if others do, as long as the frequency isn't congested.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Using your example of making a call before departing. You say ATITAPA and 3 people block each other and you never hear that guy on final. Just announce your intention to depart and everyone else keeps their mouth shut except the guy on final

 

[Kritchlow]

You're still relying on the other guy to make the call, and they may be someone who goes off the deep and and refuses to answer when they hear ATITAPA. You can't control what others do or say.

Although I don't make that call, I don't care if others do, as long as the frequency isn't congested.

I do rely to an extent on the other guy, but I also rely on the other guy not to fly into the clouds while VFR, etc.. As I said, it's not a fool proof method of collision avoidance. It IS one more layer of safety IMO.

 

[Kritchlow]

Using your example of making a call before departing. You say ATITAPA and 3 people block each other and you never hear that guy on final. Just announce your intention to depart and everyone else keeps their mouth shut except the guy on final

By your example, my departure call could be blocked by the guy turning downwind and nobody hears anything.

 

[Kritchlow]

Another important point IMO..

If someone reports back that they are 5 miles southeast planning to enter downwind, it very well may influence my decision about departure direction.

 

[Palmpilot]

By your example, my departure call could be blocked by the guy turning downwind and nobody hears anything.

That could happen, but it's much less likely that a guy on downwind is going to make an extra position and intentions call in response to someone taking the runway; it's much more likely that a guy on final would do so.

That having been said, it does seem a little odd that someone in the FAA thought ATITAPA/ATITPPA was important enough to recommend against it in the AIM.

 

[Palmpilot]

Another important point IMO..

If someone reports back that they are 5 miles southeast planning to enter downwind, it very well may influence my decision about departure direction.

Speaking for myself, I'm just as likely to do that when I hear a position and intentions report.

 

[Kritchlow]

That could happen, but it's much less likely that a guy on downwind is going to make an extra position and intentions call in response to someone taking the runway; it's much more likely that a guy on final would do so.

That having been said, it does seem a little odd that someone in the FAA thought ATITAPA/ATITPPA was important enough to recommend against it in the AIM.

If I call and hear a jumbled mess of radio clutter, I'm just going to sit tight and sort things out.

 

[gismo]

I actually agree that ATITPPA gives useful information. It alerts me that the caller has likely not been listening on the frequency for very long and might be barreling in blind with no idea of where I or anyone else is...

At the very least it tells you there's a pilot who either doesn't read the AIM or doesn't pay much attention to it.

Probably the worst thing about ATITPPA is that a significant number of pilots consider it nothing more than static and will simply ignore such a call out of spite.

To Kritchlow, what makes you think that asking everyone in the "area" to "advise" you will provide more useful information than a standard position/intention call? If you tell me where you are and I think we might conflict I'll be sure to "advise" you of my location and expectations but otherwise I'll just stick to my normal calls on downwind/base/final/clear etc. which should be all you need to hear from me. If you're ten miles out and I'm on short final for a full stop, why should you care about me?

 

[Kritchlow]

At the very least it tells you there's a pilot who either doesn't read the AIM or doesn't pay much attention to it.

Probably the worst thing about ATITPPA is that a significant number of pilots consider it nothing more than static and will simply ignore such a call out of spite.

To Kritchlow, what makes you think that asking everyone in the "area" to "advise" you will provide more useful information than a standard position/intention call? If you tell me where you are and I think we might conflict I'll be sure to "advise" you of my location and expectations but otherwise I'll just stick to my normal calls on downwind/base/final/clear etc. which should be all you need to hear from me. If you're ten miles out and I'm on short final for a full stop, why should you care about me?

What makes me think I might glean some traffic information by asking the question? 31 years of flying uncontrolled fields. I may have picked up one or two things along the way.

 

[d5by5]

Another important point IMO..

If someone reports back that they are 5 miles southeast planning to enter downwind, it very well may influence my decision about departure direction.

The AIM gives a solution to arrivals and departures in non-towered that works as long as pilots do the following:

On arrival, announce 10nm from airport location, direction, altitude and intent...then enter on a 45 midfield downwind of the active runway.

On departure, announce on takeoff the direction (or 'closed pattern'), and depart on a 45 unless a straight out departure is desired. NEVER depart on a 90 as that could run into 45 entry traffic.

 

[KA550]

If I call and hear a jumbled mess of radio clutter, I'm just going to sit tight and sort things out.

Problem here is that you are a professional and recognize the need to use multiple tools to minimize risk trying to convince a bunch of hobby drivers who believe they are experts in all things aviation that have no real concept of risk mitigation.

Never heard anyone in a professional crew environment worry about exact verbiage on the radio.

 

[Kritchlow]

The AIM gives a solution to arrivals and departures in non-towered that works as long as pilots do the following:

On arrival, announce 10nm from airport location, direction, altitude and intent...then enter on a 45 midfield downwind of the active runway.

On departure, announce on takeoff the direction (or 'closed pattern'), and depart on a 45 unless a straight out departure is desired. NEVER depart on a 90 as that could run into 45 entry traffic.

Great. Doesn't usually fit in to an IFR scenario.

 

[Kritchlow]

Problem here is that you are a professional and recognize the need to use multiple tools to minimize risk trying to convince a bunch of hobby drivers who believe they are experts in all things aviation that have no real concept of risk mitigation.

Never heard anyone in a professional crew environment worry about exact verbiage on the radio.

Thank you...

I'm still amazed people are upset about a pilot wanting to know where the traffic is.

 

[Everskyward]

Thank you...

I'm still amazed people are upset about a pilot wanting to know where the traffic is.

Because it's a pretty useless call, and specifically called out in the AIM as something not to do. That said, I don't get worked up about what others say on the radio, how they enter the pattern, etc.

Just curious how long it takes you to get going after you taxi onto the runway. I fly a jet too...

 

[Kritchlow]

Because it's a pretty useless call, and specifically called out in the AIM as something not to do. That said, I don't get worked up about what others say on the radio, how they enter the pattern, etc.

Just curious how long it takes you to get going after you taxi onto the runway. I fly a jet too...

As I stated, I don't think it's useless. Your mileage may vary. Please point me to the AIM reference where it says not to do it. Thanks.

 

[Everskyward]

As I stated, I don't think it's useless. Your mileage may vary. Please point me to the AIM reference where it says not to do it. Thanks.

Someone posted it earlier in post #29. In fact you quoted it.

4−1−9. Traffic Advisory Practices at
Airports Without Operating Control Towers
(g) ... Pilots stating, “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

 

[Kritchlow]

Someone posted it earlier in post #29. In fact you quoted it.

Thanks... I have read 4-1-9 five times in the past 10 minutes and can't find it. Perhaps one of us is reading outdated material..??

Regardless, the AIM is not regulatory, which had been pointed out several times when it fits someone else's agenda.

The call has done me well over the years, although my future of uncontrolled airport flying has all but stopped. When I do go to an uncontrolled field, I will make that call. Everyone will be PO'd that a pilot is trying to learn where the traffic is. Oh well.

 

[flyingron]

Here is THE current AIM http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim_basic_4-03-14.pdf. As stated it in SECTION 4-1-9 which is on page 4-1-4 (or if you start from the beginning of the document using Acrobat's number page 158).

Actually Change 2 changes 4-1-9 a bit but it doesn't change the section we are referring to:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim_basic_4-03-14.pdf

Top left corner of page 4-1-5 (page 69 in the PDF).

Yes, the AIM is not regulatory, but I was the one who brought this up and my point is that it is OFFICIALLY disparaged in the AIM and that is indeed true. In fact, there's nothing regulatory about making any traffic calls other than certain FCC requirements.

 

[d5by5]

Great. Doesn't usually fit in to an IFR scenario.

IFR in non towered airport? The likelihood of VFR traffic competing for the runway in IMC are probably pretty slim.

 

[Everskyward]

Thanks... I have read 4-1-9 five times in the past 10 minutes and can't find it. Perhaps one of us is reading outdated material..??

Regardless, the AIM is not regulatory, which had been pointed out several times when it fits someone else's agenda.

The call has done me well over the years, although my future of uncontrolled airport flying has all but stopped. When I do go to an uncontrolled field, I will make that call. Everyone will be PO'd that a pilot is trying to learn where the traffic is. Oh well.

Probably the reason you have not noticed it before is that it was added +-10 years ago. I remember getting an email about it at work. I think that in the past (20+ years ago) some regional airlines had it in their SOPs because I would commonly hear them using it, which caused others to start using it. Then there was this backlash against it and I rarely hear it any more.

 

[Kritchlow]

Well you and the AIM are right about one thing... It's not a "position or intention phrase".

It is a question that I have a right to ask.

 

[Everskyward]

 

[Palmpilot]

Well you and the AIM are right about one thing... It's not a "position or intention phrase".

It is a question that I have a right to ask.

We probably spend more time arguing about it than the subject is worth. As you pointed out, the AIM is not regulatory. I suspect that we all have things in it that we disregard for one reason or another. My conclusion is that as long as the ATITAPA/ATITPPA call includes a position and intentions report, it's not worth getting worked up over.

 

[Kritchlow]

We probably spend more time arguing about it than the subject is worth. As you pointed out, the AIM is not regulatory. I suspect that we all have things in it that we disregard for one reason or another. My conclusion is that as long as the ATiTAPA/ATITPPA call includes a position and intentions report, it's not worth getting worked up over.

I'll raise a glass to this, and put it to bed... For now.

 

[Everskyward]

At least I know now that my PilotFAR/AIM app works with iOS 9.

 

[d5by5]

The AIM is best practices.

You can violate the FAR too and no one is gonna pull you over and give you a ticket. The only time ignoring the information matters is after the crash.

People get tense when flying around non-towered and see others ignoring the AIM. And why not, the chaos is dangerous.

 

[azure]

We probably spend more time arguing about it than the subject is worth. As you pointed out, the AIM is not regulatory. I suspect that we all have things in it that we disregard for one reason or another. My conclusion is that as long as the ATITAPA/ATITPPA call includes a position and intentions report, it's not worth getting worked up over.

That's pretty much my position too. Other than to point out that it doesn't (or shouldn't) change what anyone else does, I wouldn't take it any further and I really don't care whether someone says it or not.

 

[48dodge]

Thanks... I have read 4-1-9 five times in the past 10 minutes and can't find it. Perhaps one of us is reading outdated material..??

Regardless, the AIM is not regulatory, which had been pointed out several times when it fits someone else's agenda.

The call has done me well over the years, although my future of uncontrolled airport flying has all but stopped. When I do go to an uncontrolled field, I will make that call. Everyone will be PO'd that a pilot is trying to learn where the traffic is. Oh well.

4-1-9 g 1 in mine

 

[flyingron]

4-1-9 g 1 in mine

I suspect he's looking at page 4-1-9 rather than section 4-1-9 (g)1.

 

[retailguy]

I suspect he's looking at page 4-1-9 rather than section 4-1-9 (g)1.

I suspect that the only thing that matters is what he thinks, but wthdik?