I could have done a better job writing my OP yesterday, but my frustration was not about the other pilot's radio calls, nor about his landing in a tailwind. It was about landing in the opposite direction than everyone else.
The Chart Supplement says that 29 is the preferred runway for 06C under certain wind conditions. Those conditions prevailed yesterday. It was a beautiful day to fly. The local schools were out. A few lucky people who could take the day off to fly where out -- I was one of them. The airport was busy.
Everyone based at 06C knows about 29. I have not heard about any local pilots, students, or renters, intentionally going to ry 11 when conditions favor the preferred runway. The schools, in particular, are very serious about that preference. Many regulars who fly to 06C for the restaurant, know about ry 29. I get that preferred is not obligatory. But yesterday, everyone before and after that blue airplane was on 29.
I am the last person to lecture another pilot over the radio, in person, or in writing. All I did yesterday was to tell a fellow pilot, as a courtesy, that 06C was landing 29. I was there for 2 hours at that time practicing and I had a pretty good idea of what direction everyone was using. That's all I did, "blue RV on downwind for 11 Archer 35K left downwind 29 looking for you and 06C lands 29 today". If he didn't know about 29, he could have changed his approach. He wanted to land on 11 and that's that.
The only thing I can say to that pilot's defense is that KORD was landing to the east. If he didn't listen to CTAF, he may have surmised from the airliners' direction that 06C would also be landing to the east.
I didn't mind his casual radio ID as "blue RV". Personally, I use the FAA-mandated format, but I see the point that others make in favor of color/type -- at least for daytime flying. I didn't mind about his landing with a tailwind; it's a skill I aspire to one day. Though 06C is notorious for underreporting wind speed by 30%-50%. My only issue was that he landed opposite to everyone else. And, I am being told here, that's not a big issue, so I won't fret over it anymore. Thanks for the feedback.
Considering there was more traffic in the pattern than just you and that the RV still decided to fly a normal pattern and land in the opposite direction of everyone else, I'd be upset and frustrated too. It seems like an unnecessary risk to all other traffic at the airport. If the airport is dead and nobody is around except for 2-3 planes (including the RV), then yeah you're going to have some conflicts and you're just going to have to manage it but once you start getting busy with more planes in the pattern, landing in the opposite direction of everyone else just mucks things up for everyone else, creates an unnecessary collision hazard and is as selfish as using your altitude to affect right of way and sequencing which the FAA specifically prohibits.
I probably would have changed your radio call a little bit informing him that 29 was being used for noise abatement and how many other people were in the pattern. Its information he probably should have been aware of already and perhaps its a tactic of public shaming to force compliance but a pilot who is going to land opposite direction because the marginal winds favor that runway isn't going to change his mind just on the fact that he's been informed the airport is operating in the other direction.
Instead of saying "blue RV on downwind for 11 Archer 35K left downwind 29 looking for you and 06C lands 29 today"
I probably would have left out my call sign and position and said something along the lines of "blue RV on downwind for 11, be advised there are at least X number of planes in the pattern and we're landing 29 today for noise abatement."
Your radio call is likely to get the "well the winds favor 11 so that's what I'm doing response" where mine is making the other pilot aware of just how many other people's pattern he is screwing up as well as giving a reason for landing 29 despite the winds.
As to the general knowledge of the noise abatement, just because it is well known doesnt mean its known by all and even when its known, not everyone complies with it.
I fly to a lot of uncontrolled fields with the challenger. Often times we select a runway that is most convenient, sometimes 30 minutes out, even if its a downwind landing. And once I switch to CTAF, if there's someone using the other runway, I just let them know which way we're landing at thats the end of that. I've never heard of someone getting so upset about it.
If someone wants to land the opposite direction, thats their choice. It is afterall called an uncontrolled airport for a reason
I give more latitude to jets because they dont normally fly the traffic pattern. Yeah it can be annoying when a jet is on a 5 mile final to the opposite direction runway as it holds up all other departing traffic including those of us in the pattern doing pattern work but the jet pilots usually do a nice job of keeping everyone informed where they are and keeping their speed up to minimize the time they are in conflict. An RV, though fast doesnt need the maneuvering space a jet does and should be flying the pattern.
I think he's talking about all the chuckleheads who don't follow the procedures. On one of my trips into Oshkosh, while traffic was landing runway 9, a Luscombe landed on 27, not talking to anyone... And then when people started running toward the runway to tell him to get the hell off of it, he took off again, right into the flow of traffic on final. A B-25 and a P-51 had to go around, and I was the second plane to land after he took off.
Good point. Considering the fly-in procedures are typically well documented and the airspace is controlled, I would definitely be upset with someone not following the procedure... but then I'm sure the FAA also was not happy with them either and they at bare minimum received a talking to from a FSDO rep if not other actions taken.
Boy, there's a lot of people in this thread who are bad at math.
Runway 11 had a tailwind. Yeah, not much of one... But several people are implying that the guy in the RV did the right thing because the winds favored 11. They didn't.
Nice catch! I think most of us took the RV's assertion that the winds were favoring 11 to be accurate and the overall tone of the ops post seemed more about noise abatement in calm/light winds than the RV flying a tailwind.
Given this, I'd probably inform the RV they need to check their math with winds 220. I'd probably make less issue about the noise abatement though I'd still also inform them of the number of planes doing patterns for 29 just so they're clear how many people they're about to screw over.
