Unapproved radio calls poll, which are you?

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

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.

Well, I doubt many if any near miss incidents are reported at uncontrolled fields, and you’re right that we are all products of our experience. 
But if you are going to suggest that towered airports are less safe I would just have to disagree. Data or no data, if it was safer without controllers, why do we even have atc?

I realize controllers make mistakes too, and while I only have just under 10 years of experience, I have never had a near miss at a controlled airport, not even an almost close. 
I have had several close calls at uncontrolled fields, two of those that I survived only by pure grace of god, and both were people without radios doing whatever the hell they wanted.
I have also witnessed at about a 1-5 ratio, stupid or dangerous acts at uncontrolled fields so my experience says otherwise. 
But hey, you do you.  Stick to the uncontrolled fields so the controllers don’t kill you. 
I’ll take my chances with the towers. 
 

 

[201er]

19 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Well, I doubt many if any near miss incidents are reported at uncontrolled fields, and you’re right that we are all products of our experience. 

I’ve filed NASA reports for most of the more alarming ones.

[MikeOH]

10 minutes ago, 201er said:

I’ve filed NASA reports for most of the more alarming ones.

Interesting.  With the expectation of what, exactly?  Not trying to be argumentative, but I imagine that the FAA is pretty familiar with the downsides of non-towered fields.  I just can't imagine what changes they can make to the FARs to improve safety?  What would NASA end up recommending based on reports of harrowing incidents in non-towered airspace?

[Schllc]

23 minutes ago, 201er said:

I’ve filed NASA reports for most of the more alarming ones.

I called the FAA when the really bad first one occurred. A crop duster rolled right out of the bay onto the runway and took off with a tail wind while I was on short final. He had to do a 90deg bank at less that 50’ to miss me and I was close enough to see his face.  
my whole family was in the plane. The FAA called the pilot and the pilot confirmed exactly what I described. 
I made all of my calls, I entered the pattern, I did everything by the rules. 

The FAA called me back to tell me that, and also to tell me no further action was required because no one did anything wrong. 
To be honest, I was furious. Someone did something wrong, because we should have never been that close.  I honestly wanted to know, even if it was my mistake. 

I never bothered reporting anything again after that incident. I didn’t really see the point. 

[midlifeflyer]

51 minutes ago, Schllc said:

if it was safer without controllers, why do we even have atc?

Sequencing at busier airports (and traffic mix) is one, since that’s ATC’s main Class D job. There are exceptions, but that’s pretty much how the FAA decides if a nontowered airport deserves a tower.

[Schllc]

15 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Interesting.  With the expectation of what, exactly?  Not trying to be argumentative, but I imagine that the FAA is pretty familiar with the downsides of non-towered fields.  I just can't imagine what changes they can make to the FARs to improve safety?  What would NASA end up recommending based on reports of harrowing incidents in non-towered airspace?

Exactly correct. There is nothing for them to do.

These are just the kinds of things that happen at uncontrolled fields. There isn’t really a solution beyond making them all towered and even with my experiences, I would not want to see that happen. 

[Hank]

Ive been based at five pilot controlled fields in seventeen years, and only recall two "almosts," both at the first field where I was for seven years.

Taking off Rwy 8 at night, working on Instruments after work in the winter. Just as I was raising the gear (approximately treetop height), some yahoo calls in "one mile east, inbound." Due to a parallel ridge, this meant that he was likely South of the field and crossing to the north for downwind. We saw him maybe 1/4 mile off my left wing; that had been his first call . . . .

The other was a Saturday afternoon, and another yahoo had been visiting and cranked up his RV to go home to wherever. As I walked out of my hangar, here he came in a curving dive towards the ramp, aimed more or less at me. I actually jumped back into the still-open hangar door to get out of his way. He was apparently feeling his oats that day, making several other low passes in different directions and maybe a loop or two. But he forgot that he was on the edge of the local Class D with remaining TRSA services, and his antics were all on radar (except those portions that were too low, like going up the river). I think the Tower reported him.

As for Towered fields, my first student night flight, Tower had me made FIVE consecutive 360° turns on downwind while waiting for a helicopter to arrive. All I needed was a handful of night landings at an airport with an operating control tower . . . And just some general disrespect for not flying a fast jet, like sitting at the Hold Short line at KSAV at noon, in June, while an airliner flew the entire instrument approach; I timed the wait in excess of 15 minutes, then two additional landing aircraft before I was granted the chance to depart. By then, my wife and I both needed to change clothes! And being held at 4500' until 3-1/2 miles from my destination (several times!), elevation 567 msl. I deviated away, reduced power, did two descending 2-minute 360s, then flew back to the field while slowing from the descent. But so far, ni near-accude is at a controlled field, but I probably visit them once or twice a year for the last decade so not much exposure. 

Or being vectored toward a mountain after departure, then forgotten by the Tower until I asked to resume own navigation and avoid the peak still several thousand feet above me. My course was almost 90° left of my assigned vector. 

[NickG]

Here’s a funny one. At KHND today a pilot in a C172 (I’m assuming student?) was reading back an IFR clearance and kept saying “radio vectors”, She was corrected numerous times and then she asked if she could make a “box climb over the airport”. Controller asked her 3 or four times what that was, and she kept repeating it getting more and more irritated with the controller. Finally the controller just said “clearance denied”. That’s a first.

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, NickG said:

Here’s a funny one. At KHND today a pilot in a C172 (I’m assuming student?) was reading back an IFR clearance and kept saying “radio vectors”, She was corrected numerous times and then she asked if she could make a “box climb over the airport”. Controller asked her 3 or four times what that was, and she kept repeating it getting more and more irritated with the controller. Finally the controller just said “clearance denied”. That’s a first.

That would be a heck of an instructor to let a student flounder like that without stepping in.  Sounds a bit like some of those videos we've been seeing lately.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

That would be a heck of an instructor to let a student flounder like that without stepping in.  Sounds a bit like some of those videos we've been seeing lately.

Students do fly solo, and not just on required XCs.

[Yetti]

19 hours ago, Schllc said:

I called the FAA when the really bad first one occurred. A crop duster rolled right out of the bay onto the runway and took off with a tail wind while I was on short final. He had to do a 90deg bank at less that 50’ to miss me and I was close enough to see his face.  
my whole family was in the plane. The FAA called the pilot and the pilot confirmed exactly what I described. 
I made all of my calls, I entered the pattern, I did everything by the rules. 

The FAA called me back to tell me that, and also to tell me no further action was required because no one did anything wrong. 
To be honest, I was furious. Someone did something wrong, because we should have never been that close.  I honestly wanted to know, even if it was my mistake. 

I never bothered reporting anything again after that incident. I didn’t really see the point. 

They are trying to make a buck.  They are less than 50 feet from stuff all day long.   Not excusing it, just what I learned.   I know to watch out for at airports with crop dusters.   My guess is the airport did not have a taxi way

[Schllc]

6 minutes ago, Yetti said:

They are trying to make a buck.  They are less than 50 feet from stuff all day long.   Not excusing it, just what I learned.   I know to watch out for at airports with crop dusters.   My guess is the airport did not have a taxi way

If he had bothered to look up he could not have missed me.  I was literally that close.   I get they are "trying to make a buck", but was it worth his life, and that of my family?

That being said, yes, I now understand that crop dusters use a different rule book altogether, its titled "whatever the f&%k I want", which is why they fly at uncontrolled fields.

[Vance Harral]

19 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Sequencing at busier airports (and traffic mix) is one, since that’s ATC’s main Class D job. There are exceptions, but that’s pretty much how the FAA decides if a nontowered airport deserves a tower.

And sometimes adding a tower makes an airport less safe and efficient, despite what I'll charitably assume are legitimate intentions.  Such has been the case at KFNL.  When that tower is in operation, they close the crosswind runway, and require all pattern operations to be west of the main runway, because - get this - that's the only direction they can see.  The "tower" is actually nothing more than a trailer, a transmitter, and a guy/gal with binoculars.  They also direct all inbound traffic to sequence over a singular point, driving all inbound traffic to close into conflict.

I grant this is a special case, but it goes to @Schllc's question of, "Why have ATC if it doesn't make things safer?"  The real answer is that ATC is added based on arguments of safety, that sometimes turn out to be more grounded in politics or other factors, rather than any actual safety.  One could just as well say, "Obviously presidential TFRs are legitimate, why would we even have them if they're not protecting the president"?

[kortopates]

Here’s a funny one. At KHND today a pilot in a C172 (I’m assuming student?) was reading back an IFR clearance and kept saying “radio vectors”, She was corrected numerous times and then she asked if she could make a “box climb over the airport”. Controller asked her 3 or four times what that was, and she kept repeating it getting more and more irritated with the controller. Finally the controller just said “clearance denied”. That’s a first.

Sounds like she was asking for the VCOA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NickG]

1 minute ago, kortopates said:

Sounds like she was asking for the VCOA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe you are correct. I think she needed more training 

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

Students do fly solo, and not just on required XCs.

LOL! That would indeed be quite an instructor - a solo student pilot picking up an IFR clearance!  

[midlifeflyer]

15 minutes ago, NickG said:

I think she needed more training 

I might be just me but I figured that out at "radio vectors."

[NickG]

9 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

LOL! That would indeed be quite an instructor - a solo student pilot picking up an IFR clearance!  

The other possibility of course is that she is a PPL with no IR trying to pick up an IFR. That's actually more likely, the more I think about it.

[Vance Harral]

One interesting thing to discuss in this thread is, "How close is close?"  For better or worse, people with a lot of experience - particularly experience at uncontrolled fields - have a much less conservative definition of "close" and/or "crazy".  Things that I don't think are unsafe or scary, bother other pilots.  Not saying I'm right and they're wrong, it's just an honest difference of opinion.

About a month ago, my airplane partner and I were ready for takeoff at our uncontrolled airport, on an unusually slow afternoon.  The only two aircraft on frequency were ourselves, and an airplane inbound on a practice VOR-A approach.  It's important to understand the nature of this VOR-A approach: it's perpendicular to the only runway, has an MAP directly over the center of the field, and has an MDA that is 600 feet above the ground.  I've flown the approach many times myself, it hasn't changed in decades.  I know exactly where the approach path is, where the missed is, and where airplanes flying it are likely to be, including error tolerances for pilots new to instrument work.

The inbound aircraft had been making good position reports on the way in, and I had their target on ADS-B.  Shortly after they called, "3 miles south", we called entering the runway, for takeoff.  The inbound aircraft immediately responded, reported 2.5 miles south, and actually issued us an instruction to hold short while they completed their approach.  I didn't want to be a jerk, but I did politely say something to the effect of, "We're not a conflict, we can't climb to your altitude by the time you're here, and we won't be in the approach path anyway.  Departing Runway XX."

The other pilot was highly offended by this, fired off a mini rant about how this was "just completely unsafe", and announced they were breaking off the approach early to avoid us.  They undoubtedly went home - almost certainly to their towered airport - and told their friends about those jerks at uncontrolled airports that just do whatever the f**k they want with no regard for safety.

I see the same sort of thing with the local jump plane, which descends from "divers away" at thousands of FPM, and at indicated airspeeds approaching 2x of the typical 172.  They will sometimes pass other aircraft on a wide, descending downwind to slot themselves forward into a perfectly reasonable empty space (especially given the 747-size patterns some of the piston singles fly).  This looks perfectly safe and reasonable to those of us who operate here every day.  It seems crazy to someone who has never seen it.  Occasionally there is an indignant "you cut me off" complaint on the radio about this, and I'd bet more than one report has been filed over the 20+ years they've been doing this.  The FAA has never done anything about these reports, to my knowledge, and most of us like it that way.

A good place to observe differing opinions about "close" is on the recently-established practice area frequency in our high-density training area.  I wish the pilots on it would just report their position, and refrain from having ATC-style interactive conflict resolution conversations.  But I try to play nice.  Anyway, I'll sometimes get a call from some other aircraft, "Nxxxxx, are you on frequency?"  I can tell the other aircraft wants to play the conflict resolution game.  But sometimes that other airplane is 5nm away, and we're both in 172s.  If we immediately turned head on toward each other, it would be 2+ minutes before we were anywhere even remotely in the vicinity of a MAC.  5nm isn't remotely "close" to me, but I'm sure it looks kinda threatening to the low-time students (and instructors) at the local, towered-airport flight school, who have never operated without ADS-B and who don't really understand the zoom scale on their EFB.

I know essentially nothing about ag ops, but I suspect some of the same things are at play in some of these ag plane conflict stories.  Ag pilots are flying highly maneuverable aircraft, and are proficient in aggressive, low-level maneuvering flight.  That doesn't excuse the pilot in @Schllc's story, because they were unquestionably a jerk. But I wouldn't be surprised, if one talked to him/her about it, that s/he would say the "near miss" was actually nothing of the sort.  Again, to be perfectly clear, I am not saying the ag pilot was right and Schllc was wrong.  What I'm saying is that you observe something that seems scary at an uncontrolled airport, and decide to take your marbles and go home because of it, you subsequently lose out on the opportunity to observe a lot of "scary stuff" happen without any actual problem.  But that's everyone's right, and if doing so makes you feel safer, more power to you.  We're fortunate to live in a country that supports both towered and untowered operations.

[midlifeflyer]

18 minutes ago, NickG said:

The other possibility of course is that she is a PPL with no IR trying to pick up an IFR. That's actually more likely, the more I think about it.

Yeah. That's why I thought of some of those recent videos of pilots screwing up simple IFR instructions and procedures. "Radio vectors" is kind of scary if you think about it.

[Pinecone]

On 9/1/2024 at 1:51 PM, DXB said:

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  

But by not saying what runway you just cleared, can imply that all the other runways are also clear, which may not be true.

[wombat]

On 9/1/2024 at 7:42 AM, Yetti said:

I changed it to say "Clear of Runway"   just to annoy the nit pickers.  It's just a nicety to give to the other people like me that keep a tight pattern and don't fly 747 patterns in a SEL.

I didn't do it to annoy anyone, but I use "Clear of the runway" as well.  I'm not just clear of runway 10, I'm clear of runway 28 as well.    Once I'm off, you can land any direction you want, for all I care!   

 

[wombat]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

One interesting thing to discuss in this thread is, "How close is close?" ...

(Lots of really good and interesting conversation omitted because it takes up a lot of screen space)

I had a co-worker that was totally freaked out because another plane passed within 2 NM of them (near KPAO) and they didn't get a call from the tower and they didn't have ADS-B in.  They said they were going to file a complaint about the tower controller and will never again fly a plane without ADS-B in.    They got mad at me when I asked if they were only ever going to fly in ADS-B mandated airspace for the rest of their life.

 

And I totally agree with you on the idea/joke/whatever that if another aircraft is 'too close' you can just zoom in on your EFB to get some better perspective. 

 

 

Does anyone know where the last 50 mid-air accidents have occurred in relation to towered Vs. untowered airports Vs. not in the vicinity of an airport?   Is there a difference in mid-air collision frequency per flight hour or airport operation between towered and untowered?    FYI, "close calls" don't matter, only actual accidents/incidents.  See @Vance Harral, @Schllc and my comments about how various people have different opinions on what makes a close call.  Of the last few I can think of, 2 were at towered  (Coeru D'alene, and Arapahoe) and 1 was not in the vicinity of an airport  (Alaska)   But I'm not really doing any research here, I'm just going from faulty memory.   Anyone else is welcome to actually research this.

[dkkim73]

I think there are two confounders to this conversation: 

1.  a heterogeneity of pilot types/attitudes/experience levels, and how they are distributed geographically

2. a heterogeneity of controller cultures, incl. contract towers and regional practices

Many of the above anecdotes are positively hair-raising to me and where I fly now. It's pretty civilized around here. Class D and C and lots of uncontrolled. Haven't flown in dense areas/class B for over a decade, maybe my old stomping grounds near SEA and MSP have changed. 

The same way we have stereotypes about Cirrus and some small jets, there are also regional stylistic differences ("I think it's reasonable so if you don't agree you're a wimp"... e.g. everyone on the road slower than you is stupid, everyone faster is crazy). FWIW I have seen more of a divergence of regional driving styles, too. I think it's a more "expressive individualistic" age where people talk less and spend more time on the internet.... the GA equivalent is flying ADS-B instead of the social and tactical milieu around you, of which ADS-B is just a part. 

 

[PeteMc]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

Students do fly solo, and not just on required XCs.

Ummm....  Don't think you can do a "Solo" IFR flight though.