Unapproved radio calls poll, which are you?

[MikeOH]

3 minutes ago, DXB said:

If you're not on any runway, then which one you're not on is irrelevant. Thus omitting the information related to the one you landed reduces chances for confusion and error on part of both the speaker and the listener.

I believe the runway you just exited is highly relevant to listeners especially if there are multiple runways. If I’m holding short to depart and can’t see down the runway for whatever reason, I want to know when landing traffic is clear of the runway I’m going to use.

 I also like consistency in procedures when possible so I use the same phraseology even if there is only one runway. I just don’t see why the great angst over, “Mooney xx, clear 18”

[DXB]

20 minutes ago, 201er said:

By that logic, just announce that your downwind, base, and final to the big black runway with white lines that you're not presently on lest you confuse someone

Nope - false equivalency! The runway you are using is obviously relevant to others while you're still in the air before landing or when you are about to depart - so that info is important to convey despite the chance of mis-speaking or being misheard.  After you've landed and exited, simply saying you're "clear of the runway" or "clear of all runways" depending on the field avoids any chance of mis-speaking or misinterpretation, while also conveying more information without extra breath. Specifically it declares that you are now no longer factor for all takeoff and landing operations considering your position, irrespective of runway.  Hopefully both you and the FAA will embrace my guidance on this critical matter, and next edition of the AIM will contain this revision  

[jrwilson]

On 8/30/2024 at 8:26 PM, 201er said:

I don’t care what direction everyone else is landing, I’m not landing a Mooney with a tailwind.

Really?  No tailwind? Not even a little wind?  What about on a 5,000’ runway?  Still not tolerating a tailwind?  That’s just silly.

[Hank]

27 minutes ago, jrwilson said:

Really?  No tailwind? Not even a little wind?  What about on a 5,000’ runway?  Still not tolerating a tailwind?  That’s just silly.

Tower at KFXE changed my landing clearance from 27 to 31, which " better aligned with the wind." So 31 is 4000 feet long, I probably floated 2500' or more, struggling to keep the tail behind me instead of coming around to the left. I finally touched down left of center, and exited after crossing 9/27. The next plane landed on 13. 

Being my second tailwind landing, I recognized what was happening when it was too late to correct, and will bot let it go that far along again. It's now pretty standard to compare my Airspeed Indicator against GPS Ground Speed to make sure I'm going the right way.

The whole feel is wrong. Directional control is all jacked up. Float is extended. Just an unhappy Mooney experience. No thank you . . . .

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

Please forgive me for not querying the FAA database, I just Google "radio calls at uncontrolled fields" and skipped over all of the training books, AOPA videos, etc., in favor of an FAA publication.

So what changed in the "radio calls at uncontrolled fields" between Rev B and Rev C?

Nothing. But when you call someone out for being anti-regulation and accuse them of not knowing or forgetting or disregarding rules, don't you think it's a good idea to be accurate in your use of references? Or, to use your words, do you just "pick and choose."

[Hank]

4 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Nothing. But when you call someone out for being anti-regulation and accuse them of not knowing or forgetting or disregarding rules, don't you think it's a good idea to be accurate in your use of references? Or, to use your words, do you just "pick and choose."

Again, what in the section I quoted from changed between Rev B and Rev C?

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

I believe the runway you just exited is highly relevant to listeners especially if there are multiple runways. If I’m holding short to depart and can’t see down the runway for whatever reason, I want to know when landing traffic is clear of the runway I’m going to use.

 I also like consistency in procedures when possible so I use the same phraseology even if there is only one runway. I just don’t see why the great angst over, “Mooney xx, clear 18”

Agreed. And, as in the example of my home base, the taxiway where you are clearing can provide information to other aircraft on the ground. 

[midlifeflyer]

5 minutes ago, Hank said:

Again, what in the section I quoted from changed between Rev B and Rev C?

Still nothing.

I think I see the problem. Bye.

[Hank]

17 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Still nothing.

You're right, nothing in this section changed. 

[Vance Harral]

3 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

8 hours ago, Schllc said:

Any communication, technically correct or not, at an uncontrolled field, is welcome in my opinion. 

TRUTH......

Well... there are problems with this sort of black-and-white thinking.  Not all uncontrolled airports have the same traffic density.  At your home 'drome, "any communication is welcome" is probably a fine philosophy.  At mine, it would be a disaster.  There is simply too much traffic here for everyone to say whatever they want/think is helpful, whenever they want/think is appropriate.  For better or worse, crisp professionalism matters here in a way it doesn't elsewhere.

That doesn't mean it's an unpleasant environment for non-locals, or that mistakes are unforgivable.  Just that local stakeholders would prefer transients strive for pro standards.  That's true at a lot of other uncontrolled airports as well.  But that doesn't mean those of us based at high-density training airport should pick a fight when we go out to Podunk regional, and hear "Blue biplane entering the downwind, how's the BBQ today?"

More generally, a large part of what drives these arguments about best CTAF behavior is the reality that different airports have different demands, character, and - most notably - local procedures.  Such as...

8 hours ago, Schllc said:

I prefer to avoid uncontrolled airports when possible for this very reason.   When I do I almost always fly directly over the airport at 1000’ over pattern to check the wind for myself and see what’s buzzing around the airport before I decide how to handle my landing.

At my uncontrolled airport, this would mean you both missed the remarks in the Chart Supplement, and also didn't listen to the message on the AWOS, that directs pilots to avoid midfield overflights due to skydiving operations.  Yes, there is a local procedure here that directs pilots not to use the overflight techniques specifically suggested in AC90-66C.

It's true you can sorta avoid this kind of problem by only patronizing towered airports, and reporting to the controller that you're unfamiliar (towered airports have a different set of risks, but that's a discussion for another time).  But the best pilots I know frequent lots of airports - both towered and untowered - and as such understand that best practices actually depend on the particulars of the airport.  This is challenging, and frustrating, since of course you can't be intimately familiar with "local procedures" everywhere in the country/world you might wish to fly.  One longs for standardization, and singular correct behaviors.  But despite the AIM, AC90-66C, and any number of other publications, that's just not the way communities work.

To end on some good news: First, there is a somewhat finite set of challenges at uncontrolled airports: some have skydiving, some have right hand traffic patterns, some have intense practice instrument approach activity, and so on.  If you adventurously seek out places to fly, don't fear the CTAF, and get enough practice to see for yourself how casual radio work actually decreases safety, you'll eventually get comfortable with the challenges just as with other aspects of flying.  Then the CTAF world doesn't seem like such a scary, wild-west kind of place.  Second, the FAA has finally got on board with acknowledging that every airport has unique challenges, and employing multimedia to get the word out on airport-specific concerns.  Their From the Flight Deck series is excellent; and while that focuses on towered airports for now, I'm hopeful it will be extended to high-density uncontrolled airports in the future.

[PeteMc]

7 hours ago, Hank said:

Read AC 90-66B, Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations

Actually...  I'd suggest they read AC90-66C (6/6/23) as it's the latest. 

But it still says the stuff you posted above.

 

[SoccerCA]

On 8/31/2024 at 4:34 PM, Jim Peace said:

I guess my non standard is to say red and white Mooney is doing this or that instead of tail number.  Nobody cares what your tail number is but they can see that I am a Mooney in a field of Cessnas....I hear others do that and If I am confused on who is doing what I can just look at my ADS and specifically ask that pilot whats up...and they can do the same....

That works provided you are the only red and white Mooney in the pattern.

IMHO announcing tail numbers is useful reconciling ADSB traffic on the screen.

The FAA AC 90-66C recommends announcing aircraft type and tail numbers, with paint scheme being optional. 

[EricJ]

41 minutes ago, SoccerCA said:

That works provided you are the only red and white Mooney in the pattern.

IMHO announcing tail numbers is useful reconciling ADSB traffic on the screen.

The FAA AC 90-66C recommends announcing aircraft type and tail numbers, with paint scheme being optional. 

I can't tell colors, especially secondary or trim colors, at any reasonable distance, so that isn't very useful information, especially since most airplanes are generally white, so it doesn't narrow it down much.   Type is helpful to know what the general shape of the airplane is plus how fast or slow it might be in the pattern.   Plus with ADS-B you can be looking at local traffic before you even get there and be prepared for who's who based on tail numbers.    For these reasons I find type and tail number to be a best practice from my perspective.  

[201er]

Here’s one unapproved CTAF communication I consider beneficial. AC90-66C says not to say your sequence.

I sometimes say it and I particularly appreciate it when others do because it verifies to me they know they are behind me. It’s way more freaky when someone behind makes all their calls without a single mention of me. Makes me wonder if they have their volume down or missed all my calls. Especially if they are calling base immediately after I do.

I’ll say something like “Mooney left base 36 number 2 behind the Cessna”

Hearing “Bonanza left downwind 36 number 3 behind the Mooney” gives me some assurance the guy behind sees me or is at least aware that I was forced to fly my base a million miles out because of the slow poke ahead of me and isn’t going to cut base leg inside of me! And it helps to know he understands to turn behind a Mononey rather than turn base as soon as he sees the Cessna on final.

So I’m not really sure why the AC is against it or what argument (other than congestion) there is not to mention position. But, I find it useful and less stressful when it is acknowledged.

[Hank]

27 minutes ago, 201er said:

Here’s one unapproved CTAF communication I consider beneficial. AC90-66C says not to say your sequence.

I sometimes say it and I particularly appreciate it when others do because it verifies to me they know they are behind me. It’s way more freaky when someone behind makes all their calls without a single mention of me. Makes me wonder if they have their volume down or missed all my calls. Especially if they are calling base immediately after I do.

I’ll say something like “Mooney left base 36 number 2 behind the Cessna”

Hearing “Bonanza left downwind 36 number 3 behind the Mooney” gives me some assurance the guy behind sees me or is at least aware that I was forced to fly my base a million miles out because of the slow poke ahead of me and isn’t going to cut base leg inside of me! And it helps to know he understands to turn behind a Mononey rather than turn base as soon as he sees the Cessna on final.

So I’m not really sure why the AC is against it or what argument (other than congestion) there is not to mention position. But, I find it useful and less stressful when it is acknowledged.

I do that, just so the guy in front of me is aware that I see him. Often if he's still on the runway or on short final as I'm turning final behind him, I'll add something like "no rush" to the end. Note that I don't do this at Towered fields, because "it's the responsibility of ATC."

[Vance Harral]

3 hours ago, 201er said:

So I’m not really sure why the AC is against it

Because people often get it wrong.

Less so in the ADS-B era, but I can't tell you how many times I've heard airplanes call "number two" when they're really 3rd in the sequence, because they're unaware of some other airplane in the pattern they haven't yet spotted.  As with a lot of things, bad information is worse than no information at all.

I'm not particularly interested in people calling their number in the sequence, because it doesn't help me find them.  I'd a whole lot rather they just report where they are.  Tell me you're mid-field downwind, or abeam the east numbers, or abeam the west numbers or making a turn (to crosswind, downwind, final).  All of those things are more helpful than saying you're "number four".

3 hours ago, 201er said:

Hearing “Bonanza left downwind 36 number 3 behind the Mooney” gives me some assurance the guy behind sees me

What useful information does "number 3" add to this call?  Isn't "Bonanza left downwind 36 behind the Mooney" just as good?

[Schllc]

All of our unique experiences at uncontrolled airports are just that, unique. 
My experience is that nearly every one I have visited has had someone who ignores all the “rules” and/or the etiquette, and/or just common decency.  Not always, but usually, If this is not the case it’s because no one is at the airport. 
No one will convince me that they are not the “Wild Wild West”, because they certainly can be, I have seen it far too often to believe otherwise.  
Am I saying everyone at uncontrolled fields behaves this way?  Absolutely not.
But there enough of them to make the chances more the rule than the exception, that you will encounter someone doing what they want, rather than what is proper.  
Just two days ago, I made all the calls on ctaf, observed the traffic both on Adsb and visually, and as I was on short final a seaplane with either no radio, or not using it landed in the opposite direction, with a tailwind, and I had to go around. I was fortunate I saw him at all. 
I have had an even closer call at an uncontrolled drome in Louisiana a few years ago.
Uncontrolled fields are what they are, and one would be wise to accept that reality, suggesting otherwise is not helpful. 
It seems some take this personally, it isn’t meant that way, it’s just a statement of fact. 
Uncontrolled fields are where students, people with severe radio shyness, and those without Adsb or radios prefer to go.  That alone is going to cause confusion at a minimum. If someone is suggesting this doesn’t happen at  untowered airfields and that everyone is professional and courteous all the time I would say it’s a rare exception.

So I guess I’m just not one of those good pilots, because I prefer towered airports. 

[midlifeflyer]

18 minutes ago, Schllc said:

So I guess I’m just not one of those good pilots, because I prefer towered airports. 

I think pilots have their preferences. Some pilots who train or are based at nontowered airports develop a bit of communication discomfort that keeps the away from towered. Some of those training or based at towered are put off by the lack of an authority figure directing traffic. 

I did my primary training at a quiet nontowered, then spent 20 years at a busy towered, and the last dozen years at a relatively busy nontowered. My impression is that the proportions are more or less equal numbers in both groups. 

[Schllc]

1 minute ago, midlifeflyer said:

I think pilots have their preferences. Some pilots who train or are based at nontowered airports develop a bit of communication discomfort that keeps the away from towered. Some of those training or based at towered are put off by the lack of an authority figure directing traffic. 

I did my primary training at a quiet nontowered, then spent 20 years at a busy towered, and the last dozen years at a relatively busy nontowered. My impression is that the proportions are more or less equal numbers in both groups. 

Sure, the pilot personalities are apportioned equally,  but their behavior is not.
You don’t just make up your own rules at a towered airport.  
That is exactly what some people do at non towered. 

I would definitely not say that the majority of pilots at non towered are this way, just that there is almost always one.  

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, Schllc said:

Sure, the pilot personalities are apportioned equally,  but their behavior is not.
You don’t just make up your own rules at a towered airport.  
That is exactly what some people do at non towered. 

I would definitely not say that the majority of pilots at non towered are this way, just that there is almost always one.  

Behavior, maybe. I've seen pilots royally screw up simple Tower and  Ground instructions. Perhaps not quite as often as the oddball nontowered pilot, but I attribute a lot of that is just the difference in traffic mix and volume.

Otherwise, I have to agree with you but while it's an annoyance, those kinds of things have not kept me away from G, E, D, C, or B airports.

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, Schllc said:

You don’t just make up your own rules at a towered airport.

Oh, I bet you would be surprised by some of the shenanigans I have witnessed at towered airports.

[PeteMc]

7 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I've seen pilots royally screw up simple Tower and  Ground instructions.

I don't know what it is this year, but I seem to always be tongue-tied at Towered airports, but no issues at Non-Towered.  

(Except it still seems weird and a lot of extra talk on the Freq to use your N# at NT airports.)

 

[Vance Harral]

4 hours ago, Schllc said:

You don’t just make up your own rules at a towered airport.  
That is exactly what some people do at non towered. 

Right.  At towered airports, you're (mostly) obligated to do what others tell you.

Such as be turned onto final at the same time other traffic is on the same final and have to take evasive action.

Such as be told "do a 360" at the base corner, over the top of other traffic inappropriately vectored in on a long base, and asking for you to turn your back to all the other traffic; then not be given instructions what to do afterward, and causing a TCAS RA for the jet on final (this happened to me just last month).

Those are just a couple of my towered airport stories.

All the things you say about untowered airports are true, and increase risk.  But you're suffering from the illusion that towered airports are consequently "safer".  On the contrary, they just have different risks.  They're often even busier, causing more traffic density, more potential conflicts, and added workload to pilots to follow instructions that can't always be predicted or anticipated.  More importantly, the tower controllers are human, too.  Sometimes they have a bad day, just like people on the CTAF.  Sometimes they're on the wrong frequency, just like people on the CTAF.  Sometimes they're trainees, just like people on the CTAF.  All of those things increase risk, too, and I've experienced all of them.

The last midair in the Denver metro area was at KAPA, a busy towered airport.  There's never been a midair in the traffic pattern at my local uncontrolled field.  Yeah, yeah, I know, you're going to tell me the guy at KAPA in the Cirrus was an idiot and "failed to follow instructions".  But he thought he did what he was told, safe in the warm embrace of a tower controller.

So both types of airport have risks.  There's no evidence in accident data that one kind is actually safer with respect to bending metal, maiming, and death.  Just a bunch of anecdotes from people that like one or the other, almost always for no reason other than that's what constitutes the bulk of their experience.

If you've got actual data to refute this, I'm open to discussion.  But for every crazy story you've got at an untowered field, I've got one at a towered field, and without data we're just talking past each other.

[midlifeflyer]

29 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

The last midair in the Denver metro area was at KAPA, a busy towered airport.

You may not recall this because it was maybe 20 years ago. A KAPA controller gave a pilot a non-standard instruction the pilot didn't understand and the controller yelled at him. I don't remember the wording but it was passed around and no one else understood the instruction either. It was somehing like  a 45 to the downwind and that's what the pilot did. Unfortunately, the controller was expecting the pilot to intercept the downwind 3 miles south of the airport! 

In the Cirrus/Key Lime accident, if I recall correctly, the NTSB faulted not only the pilot but the controller as well.

Then there was the time ATC told me to turn base directly into the path of a jet on a straight in approach. (Then apologized to the jet)

[hubcap]

I fly out of a non-towered airport just outside the KC Bravo. We have bizjet traffic merging into the pattern with turboprops, trainers in 172s and pipers plus a very active EAA chapter and a lot of guys like me. It can get pretty sporty.