What's with the turbo prop ego's

[Yooper Rocketman]

  On 10/16/2015 at 4:30 PM, Mooneymite said:

Ummmm.  Mostly this is a question of courtesy and common sense, but...

I don't think who "calls first" makes a bit of difference in the example case.  I think who is "ready to go" first is more important.  Sitting at the hold short line at a close runway waiting for a guy to taxi to a more distant runway just because he called first doesn't make sense.  In most cases, the airplane will be gone before there's any undue delay.

In another thread in a discussion about departing KTEX, a bizjet blocked access to the runway awaiting an IFR clearance....so, there are lots of different situations.  Courtesy and common sense should be practiced by all.

Erik WAS ready to take off first.  He announced he was taking off before the other pilot.  I agree we should work together, and certainly respect the fuel burn and fuel cost of a turboprop.  I'll be dealing with that myself in the next year.  That still doesn't give the turboprop pilot a pass on etiquette.  I have pulled off approaches for airports a ton of times for faster aircraft, primarily ones making a living with their plane and especially commuters on a schedule.  But actions like this are the very reason so many GA pilots have little respect for turboprop drivers.

[gsengle]

I did NOT get from his posting that he made the radio call first. They were at opposite ends of the runway probably close to a mile apart. Who calls up as "departing runway X" first absolutely matters. Nothing else matters. If pilot A called up first and then pilot B disregarded and then departed that would be grounds for certificate action I'd think. But no one said that happened, unless I misread the narrative.

That the other pilot should have known doesn't matter. He who says taking them runway first gets to take the runway first.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsengle]

Did I miss a detail here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

i wrote poorly - I did not announce "departing runway 24" and then after they announced departing runway 6.  If that is what had happened I would have taken their tail number and reported them.

I had announced taxiing to runway 24.  They never announced anything about where they were taxiing too.  They were silent until I heard them announce "departing runway 6" just before I could announce that I was departing 24.  So I waited. But as far as I am concerned - they saw me head for 24 - since I taxied right past them besides announcing.  Then they turned on, hustled over to 6 and departed in the time it took me to do a longer taxi - and run up.  I think it was stupid and dangerous practice on their part to take a tail wind departure on the not active runway with another airplane intending to depart in opposite direction within seconds of them. Not rude- but stupid.  That said, they did announce before taking the runway so no rules broken.

[Yooper Rocketman]

  On 10/16/2015 at 2:20 PM, aviatoreb said:

 Anyway just as I was announcing taking 24 for departure, they announced departing rwy6.  

Maybe an assumption on my part, but based on the above narrative, it sounded like he announced first.  With radios that don't transmit and receive at the same time, clearly one announced before the other or Erik would not have heard their intentions.  Only he can clarify this.  Regardless, the TP driver knew Erik had taxied out to the proper runway, for wind, first, and elected to take the other one for expediency or to "beat him".  A simple call requesting priority would have gone a long way in pilot etiquette. 

[gsengle]

They may have thought by hustling they were getting out of your way, assuming you needed a run up... Who knows... I know at my uncontrolled field it's not common that anyone calls up taxi movements on ctaf, not sure about other places...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

  On 10/16/2015 at 3:31 PM, gsengle said:

Agreed, but maybe they assumed you needed a run up, and if you hadn't called yet... Those pilots flying fractional PC12s can be under a lot of pressure and exhausted so I cut em slack as long as they stay safe and obey the rules...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they're under pressure and exhausted perhaps they should go back to the FBO for a nap and fly another time.  

Clarence

[aviatoreb]

  On 10/17/2015 at 1:37 AM, Yooper Rocketman said:

Maybe an assumption on my part, but based on the above narrative, it sounded like he announced first.  With radios that don't transmit and receive at the same time, clearly one announced before the other or Erik would not have heard their intentions.  Only he can clarify this.  Regardless, the TP driver knew Erik had taxied out to the proper runway, for wind, first, and elected to take the other one for expediency or to "beat him".  A simple call requesting priority would have gone a long way in pilot etiquette. 

Quite right - I wrote poorly.  I wrote accidentally what it felt like because it was done with the run up and a moment before I keyed mike they keyed first.  They were silent about taxi intentions and certainly they were aware that I had taxied to 24 past them when they were in the cockpit but before they fired up.

[aviatoreb]

All Im saying - there was a cockpit with two pro pilots on one end of the runway relying on an amateur pilot on the other end of the runway to be the grown up for them - stay aware - and stay out of their way - so that they can make like little kiddies and hustle out of their first.  

Edited October 17, 2015 by aviatoreb

[gsengle]

I think we all are generally too quick to assume the worst of others, I wasn't there, maybe they were jerks. But they were legal. Didn't you need a run-up?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank]

  On 10/17/2015 at 1:38 AM, gsengle said:

They may have thought by hustling they were getting out of your way, assuming you needed a run up... Who knows... I know at my uncontrolled field it's not common that anyone calls up taxi movements on ctaf, not sure about other places...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I learned at an uncontrolled field, and am now based t a different uncontrolled field. My CFI, and peer pressure, enforced calling all motion on the ground. Most pilots did so, can't think of any voluntary behavior that everyone always does.

Bur Erik's situation seems like the a$$wipe$ in the turboprop were just stupid, dangerous and being rude.

[gsengle]

How was it dangerous??? This is the kind of piling on I'm talking about. They announced first, had a clear runway and departed...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

  On 10/17/2015 at 2:01 AM, gsengle said:

How was it dangerous??? This is the kind of piling on I'm talking about. They announced first, had a clear runway and departed...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one crashed - it was all good - right?

It was dangerous because they were relying on me to have good radio skills.  They put their fate - and mine - 100% in my hands with no possibility to save if I were a student pilot with poor radio skills or for some reason had missed their call. I.e., they added one link to the chain of an accident that the ntsb report would include that they had a head on with an airplane on the active runway favored by wind but they departed in the opposite direction.   With everyone using the same runway, then the flow is in the same direction so even if there is a human error - ask yourself how your actions would read in an ntsb report.  

Not to mention - what if there had been a 3rd airplane, narco, landing on rwy 24-favored by the wind?

[gsengle]

We have no evidence they didn't monitor ctaf, and visually check. They announced their departure. They broke no rules, now you're reaching. There is NO such thing as an active runway at an uncontrolled field. Assuming there is is dangerous.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mooneymite]

  On 10/17/2015 at 1:37 AM, Yooper Rocketman said:

... Erik had taxied out to the proper runway, for wind.....

This was an uncontrolled airport.  Runway selection is pilot discretion, traffic permitting.

Most aircraft I'm  familiar with permit a 10 kt tailwind.  If the field length is sufficient and the tailwind component is 10 kts, or less, it is a proper runway.  Quite a bit of fuel and time can be saved by choosing a runway best aligned with the intended route of flight.

The old joke was SWA (Southwest) stands for "Seldom wants active" because SWA was always trying to shave minutes off trip times requesting runways that permitted straight in/straight out regardless of what the tower had chosen..

Edited October 17, 2015 by Mooneymite

[aviatoreb]

  On 10/17/2015 at 2:17 AM, gsengle said:

We have no evidence they didn't monitor ctaf, and visually check. They announced their departure. They broke no rules, now you're reaching. There is NO such thing as an active runway at an uncontrolled field. Assuming there is is dangerous.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I looked at them and they looked at me as I went by them.  They saw me.  This isn't a court of law - I don't need to prove it. Fact - they saw me.

Wind favored 24.  Something like 4-5kts? Ok - a big powerful plane like a PC12 can take a 3700ft runway with that kind of tail wind, but it was clear that the active runway is the head wind departure. There was no ambiguity.

If they were not two pros in a 135 flight then sure, I would think amateur move no big deal but someone should tell that kid how to fly a bit more safely.

Standard practice at small airports is to announce ground movement as well as departure.  I don't expect less from the pros than from the amateurs - I expect at least as much - and maybe more.

Yes, - you can legally get away with stuff at an uncontrolled airport but I think that is arrogant behavior and that sort of thing catches up with people in a bad way eventually.

[PTK]

Based on your description Erik they did nothing wrong, unsafe or arrogant.

They announced and expedited their takeoff on an available runway! They knew where you were. And you weren't on the runway. Had you missed their call and proceeded to taxi into position you would have been acting unsafely.

Did you expect them to ask for your permission? 

Edited October 17, 2015 by PTK

[gsengle]

They looked at you proving they knew you were not on the runway again they did nothing wrong... There is no requirement that they take off the direction you've judged best for you...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

Ok, ok - nothing wrong. And no one got hurt.  And no law broken.  I buy that.

How about in the theme of the thread "what's up with the turbo prop ego's?" do I at least get that it was not so polite?  Or - I doubt I would have seen a piston driver try that.  I was first to my plane, first to fire up, first off the ramp and first to the hold short, but waited for pilot who was more clever than me.  Sounds like old fashioned butting in line.

[gsengle]

I don't see it. If someone gets to a four way stop, I get annoyed if the other guy who had the right of way doesn't take it and wastes all of our time. Didn't ya need a run up? If you were ready first you should have called up and declared departing runway X. Otherwise I'd assume you weren't ready and I'd go...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hank]

Down this way, Erik, we call that cutting in line.

And I agree that they were rude, the aviation equivalent of the Mercedes driver thinking he owns the road, without having to worry about someone in a beater running into his shiny paint job.

[gsengle]

Hank, there was no line, it was the opposite end of the runway, he didn't pass him at the same hold short line. I don't get all the hostility...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

  On 10/16/2015 at 3:18 PM, N1395W said:

So then they should have had the common courtesy to get on the UNICOM frequency and say, "Do you mind if we use runway 6 and get out of here quick?"  I don't know of anyone that wouldn't say sure, go ahead.

A little courtesy goes a long way and doesn't cost anything.

[gsengle]

Well I bet a strict reading of the AIM would discourage all that unnecessary chit chat on ctaf. I guess I don't see the big deal. That might have been nice, and I probably would have done just that, it really wasn't necessary. Frankly I'd assume the piston aircraft had a run-up to do which is usually done after taxi to the runway. I have asked 3 times if there wasn't a run up to do... Frankly it would be unusual for a piston aircraft to not need 2 minutes more upon reaching the runway before being ready.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

The AIM isn't regulatory.  I always thought that where safety is concerned, common courtesy should be.