Winds 22004KT favoring runway 11

Status
Not open for further replies.
GreatLakesFlying

GreatLakesFlying

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
226
Location
Chicago, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Leo
I was out practicing between 06C and KDPA today under calm or very weak winds from the SSW. The airport asks pilots to use runway 29 in calm winds or direct crosswinds, for noise abatement.

As I announced my entry into left downwind 29, a "blue RV" came on CTAF announcing a fly over the field to enter left downwind for 11. I informed him that the airport was using 29 at the time. He came back and said, "well, the winds are favoring 11". The AWOS at the time was broadcasting 22004KT.

Eventually, the "blue RV" announced left base 11, then final 11, then exiting the "active" after he landed. I had him in sight and I ended up extending my left downwind for 29, just to be safe. Not a big deal.

I haven't checked my GoPros yet, but I think I have the incident recorded. I also took a photo of the tail number of the "blue RV" after I landed. I was annoyed at the time. This guy comes in, spins the airport to his convenience, and disregards the effort for noise abatement and being a good neighbor. And all that for what? To make it to Pilot Pete's happy hour?
 
Did your radio quit working? Why couldn't you inform him of the noise abatement preferred at the airport?
 
Is this one of these dorks who refers to himself as “blue RV” rather than his tail number? If so, have him arrested.

I know you’re annoyed, but seriously though, i would report something unless it was a safety issue. I generally consider noise abatement issues to be the airport manager’s job to police.
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
I was out practicing between 06C and KDPA today under calm or very weak winds from the SSW. The airport asks pilots to use runway 29 in calm winds or direct crosswinds, for noise abatement.

As I announced my entry into left downwind 29, a "blue RV" came on CTAF announcing a fly over the field to enter left downwind for 11. I informed him that the airport was using 29 at the time. He came back and said, "well, the winds are favoring 11". The AWOS at the time was broadcasting 22004KT.

Eventually, the "blue RV" announced left base 11, then final 11, then exiting the "active" after he landed. I had him in sight and I ended up extending my left downwind for 29, just to be safe. Not a big deal.

I haven't checked my GoPros yet, but I think I have the incident recorded. I also took a photo of the tail number of the "blue RV" after I landed. I was annoyed at the time. This guy comes in, spins the airport to his convenience, and disregards the effort for noise abatement and being a good neighbor. And all that for what? To make it to Pilot Pete's happy hour?
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with intentionally landing on the downwind runway either.
 
Well, isn't that special? I guess you can already tell from all the chatter, that was not an 'incident'. It might of ****ed you off, and it might have even been the 'jerk' thing to do, but the pilot did say, the winds are favoring 11 and he made all pertinent radio calls (which aren't even required). It doesn't seem like safety was an issue. Just keep flying and do what you have to do to stay safe. You can't police every numskull out there, unless his actions directly involve the safety of you or others.

PJ
 
Active runway? Uncontrolled field, there is no active.
Noise abatement? requested, suggested.
Good neighbor? They moved that close to an airport and wanna complain, eff them.
 
sarangan said:
There is nothing wrong with intentionally landing on the downwind runway either.
Click to expand...

As a CFII, are you telling me that if an airport has a preferred runway listed in the Chart Supplement, if the conditions for the preferred runway prevail, and if traffic uses the preferred runway, there is nothing wrong with intentionally landing on the opposite runway?

When we talk about hazardous attitudes, isn't this a bit of antiauthority (I don't care what the A/FD says about this airport, can't I land on any runway I choose?) and a bit of impulsivity (FlightAware shows that he departed from left downwind for 29 and entered left downwind for 11)?

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this; it's that I haven't seen anything like this before, I am curious, a bit annoyed for sure, but open to learning.
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
I was out practicing between 06C and KDPA today under calm or very weak winds from the SSW. The airport asks pilots to use runway 29 in calm winds or direct crosswinds, for noise abatement.
Click to expand...
Which end/side of the airport is noise sensitive?

As I announced my entry into left downwind 29, a "blue RV" came on CTAF announcing a fly over the field to enter left downwind for 11. I informed him that the airport was using 29 at the time. He came back and said, "well, the winds are favoring 11". The AWOS at the time was broadcasting 22004KT.

Eventually, the "blue RV" announced left base 11, then final 11, then exiting the "active" after he landed. I had him in sight and I ended up extending my left downwind for 29, just to be safe. Not a big deal.
Click to expand...
A lot of people consider something descriptive of what they’re flying to be a lot more useful to others than the generic “experimental” and an n-number that you can’t read.

Yeah, he barged in and did his own thing...doesn’t sound like there was any safety issue, so don’t worry about it. It happens, and nothing any of us can do will prevent that. (With reference to your “hazardous attitudes” post, that’s “resignation”, but also “realism”.

I haven't checked my GoPros yet, but I think I have the incident recorded. I also took a photo of the tail number of the "blue RV" after I landed. I was annoyed at the time. This guy comes in, spins the airport to his convenience, and disregards the effort for noise abatement and being a good neighbor. And all that for what? To make it to Pilot Pete's happy hour?
Click to expand...
What’s your goal for all this evidence? (And as to disregarding noise abatement, see my question above.)
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
As a CFII, are you telling me that if an airport has a preferred runway listed in the Chart Supplement, if the conditions for the preferred runway prevail, and if traffic uses the preferred runway, there is nothing wrong with intentionally landing on the opposite runway?

When we talk about hazardous attitudes, isn't this a bit of antiauthority (I don't care what the A/FD says about this airport, can't I land on any runway I choose?) and a bit of impulsivity (FlightAware shows that he departed from left downwind for 29 and entered left downwind for 11)?

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this; it's that I haven't seen anything like this before, I am curious, a bit annoyed for sure, but open to learning.
Click to expand...


I'm not a CFI, or CFII, but......

If I have a parking spot/hangar at the far East end of the airport, and it's possible to do so, I'd contemplate landing on Rwy 11 vs. Rwy 29, even if it wasn't preferred at the moment due to conditions.

It's not likely a 4kt crosswind, giving me a minor tailwind component would change my mind.

My decision would include using factors of aircraft capability, runway length etc.etc. If I could do it safely, I would. You yelling at me on unicom is likely not to change my mind (about the procedure, that is.)
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
it's that I haven't seen anything like this before,
Click to expand...
Keep flying. You’ll see it more.

I’ve had a handful of these scenarios in the 6 years that I’ve been flying, most of which occurred around the same airfield.

Nothing new has happened here. Realize the nature of the issue and let it go.

Does everyone you see on the road drive the way they were taught in Drivers Ed? No. Flying is the same way.
 
Relax Francis,

The wind was 4 kts. One knot less it would have been reported as calm. Also possible when he checked the AWOS, the wind could have been 190 instead of 220. Light winds can vary quite a bit in direction.
 
merlin3 said:
If this really bothers you that much I really hope you never fly into any big fly ins or oshkosh. You will be really upset.
Click to expand...

Big fly-ins generally have temporary (or permanent) ATC controllers that sequence and direct traffic. ATC has fairly strict requirements regarding opposite direction takeoffs or departures, especially when there is only 1 runway or multiple runways of similar alignment.

GreatLakesFlying said:
I did. He wasn't the talking type.
Click to expand...

Did you inform him of WHY you were landing 29 and that there was a noise abatement procedure? Maybe he was a transient and didn't know there was a noise abatement procedure so decided to fly the "wind preferred runway."

I'd also note that many RV's are tailwheels. Was this a tailwheel airplane? If so there are several more considerations to take into account when accepting and landing with a tailwind that are less critical to the typical tricycle-gear airplane pilot.

MauleSkinner said:
A lot of people consider something descriptive of what they’re flying to be a lot more useful to others than the generic “experimental” and an n-number that you can’t read.
Click to expand...

I've dealt with these types and had arguments with a CFI/flight school owner over it as he NEVER used his call sign when landing at a non-towered field and often didnt use a color (plus all his planes were primarily white). N number or "descriptive" color announcements are useless in general. With most airplanes I have to be uncomfortably close to you to read your N number or distinguish your color pattern but descriptive announcements without an N are more dangerous imo as it makes it impossible to tell just how many planes are out in the pattern.

I once encountered an all white Cessna that was in the practice area making calls that the "white cessna" was here... I was in a White Cessna with blue markings and there was at least one other white Cessna with garnet markings also in the practice area. It was incredibly difficult to distinguish which plane was which and where they were which just proved my theory that with a few exceptions, by the time I can read your N number or make out your distinguishing marks, a collision is probably imminent.

There are a few times where the "descriptive" call is more acceptable and that's when you're plane is a uniquely distinguishable primary color (though it doesn't always work as there can be more than 1 plane of similar colors in the area, it works in a large number of cases due to colors other than white being unusual) and I find it important to specify color when your color might make you harder to spot (such as a green plane).

I've also seen the "descriptive" call used to abuse the system and avoid their N number being logged landing at airports so as to avoid landing fees or other factors (calls from airport managers to inform you or yell at you, depending on number of times violated, about the noise abatement procedure for example). ADS-B is solving this problem to a degree but anonymity is usually desired for less than altruistic purposes.

Rgbeard said:
If I have a parking spot/hangar at the far East end of the airport, and it's possible to do so, I'd contemplate landing on Rwy 11 vs. Rwy 29, even if it wasn't preferred at the moment due to conditions.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and might contemplate the same if its solely a matter of a "preferred runway" or slight tailwind (or even crosswind) but wind conditions aside, what about noise abatement? If you have a hangar at the far end of the airport, are you likely to disregard the noise abatement procedure at your home airport just for sake of convenience? I feel like being based at an airport is more likely to make you comply with the noise abatement since A) you know about it so have no real excuse and B) are likely to actually hear from the airport manager or other personnel about failure to comply.
 
Last edited:
GreatLakesFlying said:
As a CFII, are you telling me that if an airport has a preferred runway listed in the Chart Supplement, if the conditions for the preferred runway prevail, and if traffic uses the preferred runway, there is nothing wrong with intentionally landing on the opposite runway?

When we talk about hazardous attitudes, isn't this a bit of antiauthority (I don't care what the A/FD says about this airport, can't I land on any runway I choose?) and a bit of impulsivity (FlightAware shows that he departed from left downwind for 29 and entered left downwind for 11)?

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this; it's that I haven't seen anything like this before, I am curious, a bit annoyed for sure, but open to learning.
Click to expand...
Swear to God, if I hear one more parrot speak about "hazardous attitude" I'll bite the head off a live rat. . .a diffrent viewpoint isn't a hazardous attitude. One step further - if you aren't at odds with authority on occasion, you aren't thinking for yourself.

I use "you" in the general sense, not necessarily to berate GreatLakesFlying in particular.
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
As a CFII, are you telling me that if an airport has a preferred runway listed in the Chart Supplement, if the conditions for the preferred runway prevail, and if traffic uses the preferred runway, there is nothing wrong with intentionally landing on the opposite runway?

When we talk about hazardous attitudes, isn't this a bit of antiauthority (I don't care what the A/FD says about this airport, can't I land on any runway I choose?) and a bit of impulsivity (FlightAware shows that he departed from left downwind for 29 and entered left downwind for 11)?

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this; it's that I haven't seen anything like this before, I am curious, a bit annoyed for sure, but open to learning.
Click to expand...

The guy landing the "Blue RV" probably knows lots more about flying than you do!
Like everyone said its calm wind and a uncontrolled field he can do what he wants...
Why do you want to stir up stuff?
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
As a CFII, are you telling me that if an airport has a preferred runway listed in the Chart Supplement, if the conditions for the preferred runway prevail, and if traffic uses the preferred runway, there is nothing wrong with intentionally landing on the opposite runway?

When we talk about hazardous attitudes, isn't this a bit of antiauthority (I don't care what the A/FD says about this airport, can't I land on any runway I choose?) and a bit of impulsivity (FlightAware shows that he departed from left downwind for 29 and entered left downwind for 11)?

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this; it's that I haven't seen anything like this before, I am curious, a bit annoyed for sure, but open to learning.
Click to expand...

You didn't mention that the Chart Supplement had specific instructions on which runways to use (BTW, it is a chart supplement, not AF/D). You said the "airport requests", which is not the same thing.
If a specific instruction is given, either through a publication or by ATC, then he should have followed that. In the absence of any requirement, the pilot may land on any runway he pleases.

Nevertheless, this still doesn't seem like an issue fussing over.
 
Wow, some of you guys get way to worked up over things that really don't matter.

Personally, I've only been flying since the early 70s, so I still have a lot to learn, but personally I don't give a hoot what their N number is, their color or any other description. I just want to know there's an aircraft here and an aircraft there.. etc. Because in reality, on any day but the best of days, you'd be hard pressed to see anything other than a plane in the sky.

Just tell me where you are. And if you really want to get my attention, just say "Hot chick with more hot chicks on board turning downwind for ....

PJ
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
I did. He wasn't the talking type.
Click to expand...

If someone had no clue and telling me how to fly I wouldn't be the talking type either!
I probably would have lost my mind with you. LOL!
Are you the type that makes a huge 10 mile pattern?
Looks like he snuck in and cleared the runway before you even thought about landing!
 
The only part of the story that would have bothered me was the "flying over the airport for a left downwind." I still say entering the downwind from inside the pattern is dangerous, especially when there are other aircraft in the pattern. That's all. No further discussion necessary. Get off my lawn...
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
I did. He wasn't the talking type.
Click to expand...

He probably just didn’t want to take you up on the free lesson.

In all seriousness... people, not just pilots, should only worry about things within their control. What someone does on an uncontrolled field is not within your control. Do what you have to do, slow down, do a 360, do whatever to keep yourself safe. I would advise not trying to act like the air sheriff, nothing good would come out of that.

I on at least one occasion have told someone to “Eat a di.. and come lecture me on the ground”. He didn’t come visit me...
 
apr911 said:
I get what you're saying and might contemplate the same if its solely a matter of a "preferred runway" or slight tailwind (or even crosswind) but wind conditions aside, what about noise abatement? If you have a hangar at the far end of the airport, are you likely to disregard the noise abatement procedure at your home airport just for sake of convenience? I feel like being based at an airport is more likely to make you comply with the noise abatement since A) you know about it so have no real excuse and B) are likely to actually hear from the airport manager or other personnel about failure to comply.
Click to expand...

Yep! Agree 100.00% If I was the mythical hangar-owner in the case I cited, I'd consider the noise abatement procedure as well. Likely I live in the community, and I have a vested interest in keeping the airport open and free of complaints. That said it would also factor in my decisions that landings are, by their nature, quieter than takeoffs.
 
Brad Z said:
Is this one of these dorks who refers to himself as “blue RV” rather than his tail number? If so, have him arrested.

I know you’re annoyed, but seriously though, i would report something unless it was a safety issue. I generally consider noise abatement issues to be the airport manager’s job to police.
Click to expand...

I would rather hear "blue RV"! That way I am looking for a "Blue RV!
If he states the tail number what kind of plane am I looking for? It may be 3 out there.
My calls are usually
Bonanza on final, or Cub on final, or Pitts on final, or Stearman on final.
People know what to look for.
 
Sundancer said:
Swear to God, if I hear one more parrot speak about "hazardous attitude" I'll bite the head off a live rat. . .a diffrent viewpoint isn't a hazardous attitude. One step further - if you aren't at odds with authority on occasion, you aren't thinking for yourself.

I use "you" in the general sense, not necessarily to berate GreatLakesFlying in particular.
Click to expand...

Umm, I do believe you are exhibiting one of the Hazardous Attitudes with this post. I had to point this out so I don't get in trouble with the FAA.
 
pigpenracing said:
I would rather hear "blue RV"! That way I am looking for a "Blue RV!
If he states the tail number what kind of plane am I looking for? It may be 3 out there.
My calls are usually
Bonanza on final, or Cub on final, or Pitts on final, or Stearman on final.
People know what to look for.
Click to expand...
You should petition the FCC to change their rules on radio station identification from aircraft registration number to aircraft description. Until then, I’ll continue to use my tail number as my call sign.
 
Was the vile offender scum using only his description? Or was it something more like:

"Schaumburg traffic, Experimental 999XZ. Blue RV. Ten miles south, inbound for left downwind. Runway 11. Schaumburg."
 
Brad Z said:
Is this one of these dorks who refers to himself as “blue RV” rather than his tail number? If so, have him arrested.

I know you’re annoyed, but seriously though, i would report something unless it was a safety issue. I generally consider noise abatement issues to be the airport manager’s job to police.
Click to expand...

“I see two RVs. Advise if you are the Winnebago?”
 
Brad Z said:
You should petition the FCC to change their rules on radio station identification from aircraft registration number to aircraft description. Until then, I’ll continue to use my tail number as my call sign.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to petition anything because I really don't care! Really I don't have to make any radio calls at a uncontrolled field. I flew my Cub for years with no radio. Does that bother you?
 
apr911 said:
Did you inform him of WHY you were landing 29 and that there was a noise abatement procedure? Maybe he was a transient and didn't know there was a noise abatement procedure so decided to fly the "wind preferred runway."

I get what you're saying and might contemplate the same if its solely a matter of a "preferred runway" or slight tailwind (or even crosswind) but wind conditions aside, what about noise abatement? If you have a hangar at the far end of the airport, are you likely to disregard the noise abatement procedure at your home airport just for sake of convenience? I feel like being based at an airport is more likely to make you comply with the noise abatement since A) you know about it so have no real excuse and B) are likely to actually hear from the airport manager or other personnel about failure to comply.
Click to expand...
Maybe by landing the opposite direction, the blue RV was actually avoiding the noise sensitive area.
 
Last time I checked, the pic can choose whatever runway he prefers at an uncontrolled field...in calm winds especially. Does the atis announce to land on 29 in calm winds due to noise abatement ?

This happens at our airport all the time...If winds are light and variable, I taxi to the nearest runway. As long as traffic makes a radio call to announce intentions, I really could not care less.

Just how much noise could a little RV make in the first place.
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
The airport asks pilots to use runway 29 in calm winds or direct crosswinds, for noise abatement.

As I announced my entry into left downwind 29, a "blue RV" came on CTAF announcing a fly over the field to enter left downwind for 11. I informed him that the airport was using 29 at the time. He came back and said, "well, the winds are favoring 11". The AWOS at the time was broadcasting 22004KT.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but all the noise abatement requests I've seen are unidirectional and pertain to takeoffs (more noise at takeoff than landing). Now I'm sure there are some bi-directional ones (takeoff in one direction and land the opposite) but I haven't been to an airport that has those.

Which means that by asking pilots to use runway 29 for noise abatement, they want people to not fly over the area east of the field (I guess the people in Roselle complain the loudest).

So by using runway 29 for landing, you flew over the area that the airport manager is trying to abate the noise over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top