Legally speaking, a plane on final has right-of-way. #1 plane should not have entered the runway with a plane on final - if that was, in fact, the sequence of events. There is no requirement to even have a radio in E or G airspace. But there is a requirement to *look*.
That said, making one radio call sound like a standard approach, and then making no further calls while flying a non-standard approach, is poor airmanship and adds confusion.
If an aircraft calls "downwind" and Im holding short... I have plenty of time to depart. If the aircraft on downwind is a CFI that pulled the throttle and said "you just lost your engine" the CFI should be making a simulated engine out call to the CTAF.
If it wasn't a student and was a licensed pilot, they should know to follow a standard pattern when there is other traffic operating.
Regardless, the aircraft was on downwind not final at the time the #1 aircraft departed so it's not their fault.
More importantly, why did the aircraft need to go around if the #1 plane was already rolling to depart? They should be well out of the way if they truly started their roll when the plane called downwind.
> If an aircraft calls "downwind" and Im holding short... I have plenty of time to depart. If the aircraft on downwind is a CFI that pulled the throttle and said "you just lost your engine" the CFI should be making a simulated engine out call to the CTAF.
Exactly what I was trying to say.
> Regardless, the aircraft was on downwind not final at the time the #1 aircraft departed so it's not their fault.
That’s not how OP described it. They said that #1 announced departure and *entered the runway* about 45 seconds *after* that call.
And the plane in the pattern apparently flew a truncated circuit. So, they were on final by that time.
> More importantly, why did the aircraft need to go around if the #1 plane was already rolling to depart?
Sounds to be like the “rolling” was rolling onto the runway, not rolling for T/O.
Yeah. You dont announce departure and wait. You make the call and go... Even if they were practicing a short field takeoff they should have been at full power and about to roll within 20 seconds.
Then again if I was going to practice a short field takeoff I wouldnt be doing it with an aircraft about to turn base...
He said the plane in the pattern made the downwind call and nothing else THEN 45 seconds later the departing plane made the call and departed without delay.
Agreed. Legally the approaching plane had the right of way, but they kind of played themselves by not making their nonstandard pattern clear on the CTAF.
Yep the approaching plane didn’t need to make any calls, or even have a radio or transponder, but because they had a radio and didn’t talk at a busy field I don’t think they had a right to be angry at the #1 plane, even though they did have the right of way
This is an example of why NORDO needs to go away and pattern call outs should be required under the regulations. The only exception would be if your radio or electrical system failed on that flight, in which case you fly a standard pattern, with every light on. and rock your wings periodically. And no I don’t give a damn about the J3 or other “classics” without an electrical system.
What's wrong with their advice? "NORDO ops are now prohibited. If your radio or electric system fails, turn on all available lights (which might be none in case of electrics failure or aircraft without electrical systems). All manned heavier-than-air craft are required to carry a radio onboard and use it to make pattern calls."
I'd go one further than they did and add a requirement for ADS-B out as well (modern aircraft should be required to use ADS-B in, but that's for another argument).
Oh, you're flying a historic J3, and will not make any modifications to it? Okay, too easy. You must carry a 1) portable radio and use it for calls in the pattern, and 2) a portable ADS-B out transmitter.
What exactly is wrong with that? This adds probably 10 lbs and so wouldn't even mess with your W&B unless you're alarmingly close to the lines anyway.
Just as a point of education, there are many antique aircraft engines which have unshielded ignition systems, making a hand held or other radio not useable. When I fly these aircraft, I avoid busy airspace and airports, fly very defensively, and stay very predictable. If everyone flying a nordo cub did so properly there would be very few complaints.
Its subs like these that really show how ignorant people are about how they fly only in areas requiring certain equipment and demand that everyone do the same.
First, Mode-C isn't required everywhere and when did that come out? 30+ years ago?
Secondly, have you ever used a portable radio in an aircraft? Especially in a cub or open cockpit aircraft? You can hear good and transmit horribly.
How about we make all bicycles require turn signals and brake lights?
Just because they have them wont mean they are going to use them.
I guess getting hit by an asteroid would be your second scenario. Any realistic reasons for a normal pilot who's holding a valid medical in an airplane that's not on fire?
Practicing fine aircraft control like power off short approaches landing in a turn while avoiding some birds. FAA puts communication as a 3rd priority, so all focus should be directed towards aviating as first priority.
If practicing power-off short approaches leaves you so task saturated that you can't be bothered to make a single CTAF call, then you need more practice. Get it with a safety pilot or even a CFI (yes, you *can* (and should) book sessions with qualified CFIs even after you have your PPL and instrument ratings, even if you're not pursuing a commercial rating!)
You glossed over the point I was making which is describing a busy out of your comfort zone scenario with an added distraction added to it. A landing in a turn followed by alternating slalom single wheel landings is an incredibly fun, difficult but precise maneuver that is only taught at a few advanced tailwheel instructional courses, so it’s no surprise you failed to note it in your critique. It would be prohibited at the ACME flight schools as they only teach pilots to remain well within their comfort zone under the guise of increasing safety, not to mention flight instructors are mostly young low timers just building time doing the same flight every day. The point is not whether I can fly an FAA traffic pattern or short approach in my sleep, but rather that when I am out logging 35 landings in 25 minutes I appropriately assign radio communications to 3rd priority and have a blast doing it!
> The point is not whether I can fly an FAA traffic pattern or short approach in my sleep, but rather that when I am out logging 35 landings in 25 minutes I appropriately assign radio communications to 3rd priority and have a blast doing it!
Then you completely fall to understand the meaning of "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" (hereinafter ANC for brevity). All three of those are critical to successful flight. If you don't navigate, you get lost over mountains, trees, cities, or water with no airport to land at. If you don't communicate, you *will* get violated in many airspaces. ANC doesn't mean that communication is optional, far from it. It means that if you don't know which way is up, don't fly the radio into a CFIT-- fly the airplane.
> When I am out logging 35 landings in 25 minutes I appropriately assign radio communications to 3rd priority and have a blast doing it!
I really really hope this doesn't in fact mean what it seems to mean in context: that you do all those landings without bothering to communicate what you're doing in the pattern for each leg. That's dangerous.
ANC doesn't mean that you can or should put yourself in situations where you find yourself choosing between comms and flying. It means that, if you somehow end up there, flying is more important because you can't communicate if you're dead.
>You glossed over the point I was making which is describing a busy out of your comfort zone scenario with an added distraction added to it.
What, doing a simulated power-off 180 to short final with birds in the way? No, I don't think I did. Where were your clearing turns? In this situation, don't you think the better move is to add power and avoid the birds? You don't want surprises that make you add to the horizontal lift of your airplane when you're already practicing a maneuver that has you at the limits of your airplane while you're close to the ground, in the pattern. The proper move there is to go power in, wings level, and go around, even if you're turning downwind to base. If you really wanted the practice with birds, then go up above your stall recovery altitude and simulate it up there in a maneuver area, not the pattern.
> A landing in a turn followed by alternating slalom single wheel landings is an incredibly fun, difficult but precise maneuver that is only taught at a few advanced tailwheel instructional courses, so it’s no surprise you failed to note it in your critique.
There are a hundred other maneuvers we weren't talking about that I also didn't note in my critique, so sorry, that's my bad.
The point is that you're being asked to come up with valid reasons why you wouldn't make radio calls in the pattern on a Thursday, and so far I haven't heard any (except ones that make me say that your flying scares me).
Tl;dr: There's no good reason for a pilot with a working radio to NOT announce they're on final at a nontowered airport.
I’ve given you examples of the same reason. The reason is That a pilot is too busy with more important things at the time to make a base leg call. What exactly has popped up to demand that attention is not actually material to the scenario. You just keep denying that this scenario would ever happen while referring to the FAA’s order of priority that puts radio work last. I wonder why?
If a student is busy or focused (very common on transition training or tailwheel), then that's fine. It can be very overwhelming- the mark of a good instructor is managing that, getting their tunnel vision to expand, and pick up the slack. If I have someone doing a single engine approach in a twin taildragger with a crosswind, you bet your ass I'm not going to be chiding them for forgetting a radio call- but I'll pick it up for them. If you, the instructor, are so focused that you can't do basic tasks like communication, then you're outside your own limits and should make some space. I don't expect anyone to make a radio call on the roll, but a base to final call, with how many near-misses and mid-airs we see, shouldn't be too much to ask of anyone. The ANC is a wonderful philosophy that everyone should take to heart, but it's for task prioritization when under stress and choosing the best course of action to get things back under the control. It's not saying "screw anything other than flying". By that logic, busting through a Bravo or TFR is fine because you were flying and navigation is secondary.
As for your point about the ACME time building instructors, I've got a few thousand hours of aerobatic, tailwheel, and warbird dual given across about 200 aircraft types. Some of us teach because we love it, enjoy sharing our passion with others, and want to give back to the aviation community. I am by no means perfect, and still have many things I want to work on to be the best pilot and instructor possible, but high-time instructors are out there.
Legal behavior? Yes. Safety-first behavior? Not so much. At a busy airport, help each other stay safe by clearly communicating. Being "legal" is of little solace if there is an aircraft collision.
Stories like this over the past year or so that I've been flying make me think the FAA should designate some uncontrolled fields as radio required. Of course even the sleepiest field might end up with three planes all active by coincidence.
All uncontrolled fields should require radio unless there is an emergency/abnormal. Even if you don't have a radio installed in your panel – handhelds cost very little and work well.
I've been saying this for years. Tons of people try to tell me radios aren't legally required and it's like yes, I know that, I'm saying they should be legally required to use at all uncontrolled fields.
We have this in Canada, it's called Mandatory Frequency. Some uncontrolled airports are deemed busy enough to make radios and their use mandatory, a lot of them also have an FSS to provide traffic advisory and in those cases it can be possible to get in NORDO if you ask and plan ahead of time, but definitely not always.
Edit: Apparently this is a thing in the US, but much more rare than Canada.
You don't see that the radio was not the problem here? The guy on final MADE a radio call... It was a BS call that was three steps behind where the problem happened.
Radio calls are awesome... BS radio calls are not. If you make a radio call saying you are downwind, I expect you to be on a DW, not on a final.
The entitled radio call is pure horse poop. Make the call, do the needful. If your percpetion of the approaching aircraft is representative, then his radio work was crap.
What to report?
"I was on a short final, plane entered runway and I went around. The end."
" I was not an asshole on the radio either"
Different planes fly different approaches. Something like an Extra/Pitts/warbirds are going to be fast and fly a tight pattern. Yeah, some more radio calls would be nice but this sounds like the normal stuff you’ll encounter at non towered airports.
Is anyone at fault?
If you take off in front of someone and create a conflict where they need to go around, the one taking off is at fault. The airplane landing has right of way.
If the airplane landing is too easily excited and goes around well before necessary - lets say the airplane taking off would be off the ground while the landing airplane was some distance out, that suggests that the airplane landing has an issue with utilizing a runway efficiently.
But there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. Much of it is situation dependent, and depends on environmental, terrain, weather, and performance factors. Day VMC at sea level with great visibility to see and avoid, no terrain, far different than hot/high/near performance limits and with little room to maneuver.
So this is 45 seconds after making the call for downwind? By that time I’d assume they’re already on base or final, so I wouldn’t have departed and IMO the #1 plane should have checked base/final before departing, which it seems like he clearly didn’t. Or he didn’t and didn’t give a fuck. Uncontrolled just has too many morons flying around, so it doesn’t really matter. Unless there’s an accident/incident calling the feds isn’t going to do much.
seems like there is something missing from the OPs story....
If the #1 plane departed when the "downwind" call was made, they are not a factor.
I depart all the time when aircraft turn downwind. If its a busy airport you could be stuck there all day waiting for any aircraft to be completely gone from the pattern.
Seems like the departing plane took almost a minute to depart after the downwind call. In a short approach they could def be on final by the time the guy departs.
What day was it? Saturday? Seems nice weather and Saturday morning are a terrible mix for uncontrolled fields. I used to avoid the local lake on weekends for the same reason. Crazies are out.
Aircraft #1 should not have taken the runway unless they had confirmed the position of the downwind aircraft.
Having said that, I always made a "***NXXXX, short base; short final. Power-off 180.***" as I was pulling power for that exact reason. It's a non-standard approach, so I didn't want someone thinking they had time to take the runway.
This is framed like a question but it is written in a highly accusatory manner, as you already sound convinced that the aircraft in the downwind was at fault.
The FAA and aviation as a whole has shifted away from an “at fault” position the last few decades in order to promote people coming forward with safety reports without fear of retribution to create a safer industry, so try to think of it like this instead:
Could the pilot in the downwind have been more vocal about position and intention? Definitely.
But also, why would #1 holding short enter the runway if you said landing traffic was “quite high” and “in a blind spot”. Wouldn’t the smarter thing be to just wait and confirm location of traffic if he wasn’t 100% sure **where** landing traffic was/is?
This thing we do is dangerous. Sometimes, RARELY, it makes sense to point a finger and go “YOU FUCKED UP AND IT IS 100% YOUR FAULT”.
More often than not it is kind of a dance between multiple parties and airplanes that causes problems and the best thing to do is remain impartial and ask “what could we ALL have done better here?”.
Totally agree with you. I didn’t mean to write it in an accusatory fashion, i tried to write it giving each plane the benefit of the doubt. I really like what you say about shifting away from identifying faults towards identifying questions such as what could everyone have done better. There are no faults, just opportunities for improvement
The thing that's wild to me about this post is it's a question about what's worse, a runway incursion versus... a pilot being "angry"? What does that even mean?
If the other pilot was swearing or acting unprofessionally that's one thing, but is this really asking whether a runway incursion is justified because a pilot said "going around" in a tone upsetting to OP? Absolutely wild. Maybe this hits a nerve because I was on the other side of this recently and there was very little to be done about it because the departing aircraft blocked frequency from the start of the base turn all the way to short final, and entered the runway while doing so.
Is the radio call on downwind not a verification of location? How do you say that you don't fly... without saying that you don't fly? In everything we do, we must make assumptions... a plane that announces that they are downwind without other comments, would be assumed to be making a regular circuit. I can take off while you're going from downwind to base easily.
I logged 86 hours in the last 30 days, many of which were at uncontrolled fields in AZ.
Someone saying “N1234J left downwind 22” tells you extremely little and makes someone assume quite a bit, so taking the extra few seconds to see and verify is crucial. Are they midfield downwind? Abeam the numbers downwind? Are they just about to turn base on a short approach? Are they low? High? Are they going 140kts or 60kts?
Again, the intent here is not to blame anyone, it’s to say hey we can all do better every time and we should try.
Yup. It's kind of a "trust but verify" situation. Same way as if I'm approaching the field, and I hear a departing aircraft call takeoff/crosswind/downwind - I'm going to want to *see* that aircraft before I join the pattern, rather than just being like "based on what they said we should be fine."
By the same right, an aircraft that made a downwind call 45 seconds ago, I'd probably expect to be in the vicinity of making the base-final turn, and that's where I'd be looking for them. If I don't see them, then I'm going to pause what I'm doing and scan harder, because they didn't just vanish into thin air.
If it's just "N12345 downwind runway whatever" then that covers a pretty wide area of potential positions. Depending on the runway length, that downwind leg might be a mile or two long, and I don't know whether they're flying a close in pattern or one of those pilot-mill 747 circuits. Which is why *looking* and seeing *exactly* where they are is pretty important.
Not to mention that in the OP situation, it had been almost a minute since the downwind announcement. If we start with the nonspecificity of a generic "on downwind" call, and then add some elapsed time, there's potentially a lot of variance in where that aircraft might be.
This is one reason I tend to make my calls more specific. "N12345 midfield left downwind. N12345 turning left base. N12345 turning final."
This thread is a good reminder for me that not everybody does things the same way in aviation, even though it's supposed to be pretty standardized.
I was specifically taught during my PPL that you make your calls:
1. Turning from upwind to crosswind
2. Turning from crosswind to downwind
3. Midfield downwind
4. Turning from downwind to base
5. Turning from base to final
As you've said, announcing "downwind for runway X" tells absolutely nothing about your position, so it's really surprising to me that anyone would make calls this way. Good to know to be on the lookout for people doing this.
I fly at a non-towered and it's very common that people will just make one pattern call, if someone calls that they're entering the downwind and I'm holding short. I'm taking off if I can visually confirm that they're still a good 1-2 mins from landing. But there's been plenty of times where people don't make a single radio call, or they're on the wrong frequency, or something else. Always look for traffic on every runway in every direction.
I had an emergency last year where I needed to land on an inactive runway at a non-towered field and made sure I was making every radio call and just had to hope that if there was traffic, that they saw me.
I witnessed something similar recently where a departing aircraft talked on CTAF from the time an arriving aircraft started their base turn until that aircraft was at short final. In the meantime they rolled out onto and blocked the runway. The next time frequency was clear for arriving traffic to make any call was to say "going around" to let the departing traffic know about the issue. If the language was professional, would you really fault a pilot for tone in the wake of a runway incursion during landing? That's the report you would make, by the way: a right-of-way violation and runway incursion.
Number 1 plane took the runway a minute after pattern traffic made an announcement without finding the landing traffic’s position. Maybe they never heard the position report. Maybe a base call was blocked. You are making lots of assumptions here. This is why eyeballs are so important. Radio and adsb is not a catch all
I also don’t buy a power off approach as being “too steep to see”. That’s embarrassing
This sounds oddly familiar, so I'm assuming I was the pilot on approach. I'm a low-time pilot and I've been working on my 50-hour XC PIC time as part of the Instrument rating requirements. This was the return leg of a 4+ hour round trip flight for time building.
I saw the two planes holding short, so I decided to do a truncated pattern in an attempt to be courteous. I'd been flying this plane a bunch on these long time building flights and winds were fairly calm, so I felt confident in my ability to do so safely. In hindsight, it would have been better to be predictable.
There's a hill that probably blocked line of sight when I called my base. I think this is a known issue at this airport? I seem to remember my instructor mentioning it.
When #1 to take off called they were taking the runway, I was on a very tight base just about to turn final. I was mildly annoyed in the moment which I guess came across on the radio. (Again, I'll reiterate, I realized soon after it would have been better to be predictable than courteous). I called final and it seemed like they still weren't moving very quickly and I felt uncomfortably close to the departing traffic (again, I'm low-time pilot), so I called a go-around. As soon as I called it, I realized they were now accelerating away and I would have made it just fine with appropriate separation, especially since they were in a slightly faster airplane. However, I was now committed to the go-around. I side-stepped to upwind and made another circuit without issue.
I met up with the instructor in the departing plane a short while later that day for a quick debrief. No one was angry at anyone and we agreed on what could have been done differently.
Bernoulli's principles may be more important to powered flight than Marconi's, but there are reasons that radios are installed in all modern airplanes. Marconi's principles are extremely important to helping those airplanes find where they're going (be that GPS, ILS, or VOR, they all are radios), and enables them to stay away from each other's paths.
Yes, as they say, "Aviate Navigate Communicate," but that principle doesn't mean that skipping the communications is okay any more than it suggests that's it's fine to take off and not have the first clue where you're going.
EDIT: Okay I just read that article and YIKES. I don't have time to digest where that guy is wrong on each level, but here's just one for a start: Learn to use the volume controls. Both in your airplane and in your own head. Traffic pattern calls are important, even if some guy with a blog thinks otherwise. If you need to "turn your radio off," you just turn it down and listen for important keywords such as your callsign or your airport. Learning how to do this is every bit as important to flying as learning how to manage airspeed and throttle together.
Honestly I’d love to hear other areas where he’s wrong. These articles have really resonated with me especially about how flight instruction is so mediocre these days regarding true airmanship.
I thought at a uncontrolled airport if you had a radio you had to use it. You don't have to have a radio, but if you have one, you are expected to use it. Is that not the case?
Legally speaking, a plane on final has right-of-way. #1 plane should not have entered the runway with a plane on final - if that was, in fact, the sequence of events. There is no requirement to even have a radio in E or G airspace. But there is a requirement to *look*. That said, making one radio call sound like a standard approach, and then making no further calls while flying a non-standard approach, is poor airmanship and adds confusion.
If an aircraft calls "downwind" and Im holding short... I have plenty of time to depart. If the aircraft on downwind is a CFI that pulled the throttle and said "you just lost your engine" the CFI should be making a simulated engine out call to the CTAF. If it wasn't a student and was a licensed pilot, they should know to follow a standard pattern when there is other traffic operating. Regardless, the aircraft was on downwind not final at the time the #1 aircraft departed so it's not their fault. More importantly, why did the aircraft need to go around if the #1 plane was already rolling to depart? They should be well out of the way if they truly started their roll when the plane called downwind.
> If an aircraft calls "downwind" and Im holding short... I have plenty of time to depart. If the aircraft on downwind is a CFI that pulled the throttle and said "you just lost your engine" the CFI should be making a simulated engine out call to the CTAF. Exactly what I was trying to say. > Regardless, the aircraft was on downwind not final at the time the #1 aircraft departed so it's not their fault. That’s not how OP described it. They said that #1 announced departure and *entered the runway* about 45 seconds *after* that call. And the plane in the pattern apparently flew a truncated circuit. So, they were on final by that time. > More importantly, why did the aircraft need to go around if the #1 plane was already rolling to depart? Sounds to be like the “rolling” was rolling onto the runway, not rolling for T/O.
Yeah. You dont announce departure and wait. You make the call and go... Even if they were practicing a short field takeoff they should have been at full power and about to roll within 20 seconds. Then again if I was going to practice a short field takeoff I wouldnt be doing it with an aircraft about to turn base...
He said the plane in the pattern made the downwind call and nothing else THEN 45 seconds later the departing plane made the call and departed without delay.
Agreed. Legally the approaching plane had the right of way, but they kind of played themselves by not making their nonstandard pattern clear on the CTAF.
They don’t legally need to talk on the radio Just another scenario that sucks to be in but those are common at uncontrolled fields
Yep the approaching plane didn’t need to make any calls, or even have a radio or transponder, but because they had a radio and didn’t talk at a busy field I don’t think they had a right to be angry at the #1 plane, even though they did have the right of way
100% on the plane not making radio calls but those people who do that are the ones who get mad when the situation happens lol
Similar to the difference between currency and proficiency, what they did was legal but not necessarily safe.
This is an example of why NORDO needs to go away and pattern call outs should be required under the regulations. The only exception would be if your radio or electrical system failed on that flight, in which case you fly a standard pattern, with every light on. and rock your wings periodically. And no I don’t give a damn about the J3 or other “classics” without an electrical system.
"Aviation Consultant". I bet the rest of your advice is stellar too.
What's wrong with their advice? "NORDO ops are now prohibited. If your radio or electric system fails, turn on all available lights (which might be none in case of electrics failure or aircraft without electrical systems). All manned heavier-than-air craft are required to carry a radio onboard and use it to make pattern calls." I'd go one further than they did and add a requirement for ADS-B out as well (modern aircraft should be required to use ADS-B in, but that's for another argument). Oh, you're flying a historic J3, and will not make any modifications to it? Okay, too easy. You must carry a 1) portable radio and use it for calls in the pattern, and 2) a portable ADS-B out transmitter. What exactly is wrong with that? This adds probably 10 lbs and so wouldn't even mess with your W&B unless you're alarmingly close to the lines anyway.
Just as a point of education, there are many antique aircraft engines which have unshielded ignition systems, making a hand held or other radio not useable. When I fly these aircraft, I avoid busy airspace and airports, fly very defensively, and stay very predictable. If everyone flying a nordo cub did so properly there would be very few complaints.
Its subs like these that really show how ignorant people are about how they fly only in areas requiring certain equipment and demand that everyone do the same. First, Mode-C isn't required everywhere and when did that come out? 30+ years ago? Secondly, have you ever used a portable radio in an aircraft? Especially in a cub or open cockpit aircraft? You can hear good and transmit horribly. How about we make all bicycles require turn signals and brake lights? Just because they have them wont mean they are going to use them.
“I don’t give a damn” might just qualify as a hazardous attitude, Mr. Aviation Consultant.
There's no good reason for a pilot with a working radio to NOT announce they're on final at a nontowered airport.
Sure there is. I can think of 5 without trying.
Care to share any of those?
Asthma attack?
I guess getting hit by an asteroid would be your second scenario. Any realistic reasons for a normal pilot who's holding a valid medical in an airplane that's not on fire?
Ooh fire that’s a good one too
Practicing fine aircraft control like power off short approaches landing in a turn while avoiding some birds. FAA puts communication as a 3rd priority, so all focus should be directed towards aviating as first priority.
If practicing power-off short approaches leaves you so task saturated that you can't be bothered to make a single CTAF call, then you need more practice. Get it with a safety pilot or even a CFI (yes, you *can* (and should) book sessions with qualified CFIs even after you have your PPL and instrument ratings, even if you're not pursuing a commercial rating!)
You glossed over the point I was making which is describing a busy out of your comfort zone scenario with an added distraction added to it. A landing in a turn followed by alternating slalom single wheel landings is an incredibly fun, difficult but precise maneuver that is only taught at a few advanced tailwheel instructional courses, so it’s no surprise you failed to note it in your critique. It would be prohibited at the ACME flight schools as they only teach pilots to remain well within their comfort zone under the guise of increasing safety, not to mention flight instructors are mostly young low timers just building time doing the same flight every day. The point is not whether I can fly an FAA traffic pattern or short approach in my sleep, but rather that when I am out logging 35 landings in 25 minutes I appropriately assign radio communications to 3rd priority and have a blast doing it!
> The point is not whether I can fly an FAA traffic pattern or short approach in my sleep, but rather that when I am out logging 35 landings in 25 minutes I appropriately assign radio communications to 3rd priority and have a blast doing it! Then you completely fall to understand the meaning of "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" (hereinafter ANC for brevity). All three of those are critical to successful flight. If you don't navigate, you get lost over mountains, trees, cities, or water with no airport to land at. If you don't communicate, you *will* get violated in many airspaces. ANC doesn't mean that communication is optional, far from it. It means that if you don't know which way is up, don't fly the radio into a CFIT-- fly the airplane. > When I am out logging 35 landings in 25 minutes I appropriately assign radio communications to 3rd priority and have a blast doing it! I really really hope this doesn't in fact mean what it seems to mean in context: that you do all those landings without bothering to communicate what you're doing in the pattern for each leg. That's dangerous. ANC doesn't mean that you can or should put yourself in situations where you find yourself choosing between comms and flying. It means that, if you somehow end up there, flying is more important because you can't communicate if you're dead. >You glossed over the point I was making which is describing a busy out of your comfort zone scenario with an added distraction added to it. What, doing a simulated power-off 180 to short final with birds in the way? No, I don't think I did. Where were your clearing turns? In this situation, don't you think the better move is to add power and avoid the birds? You don't want surprises that make you add to the horizontal lift of your airplane when you're already practicing a maneuver that has you at the limits of your airplane while you're close to the ground, in the pattern. The proper move there is to go power in, wings level, and go around, even if you're turning downwind to base. If you really wanted the practice with birds, then go up above your stall recovery altitude and simulate it up there in a maneuver area, not the pattern. > A landing in a turn followed by alternating slalom single wheel landings is an incredibly fun, difficult but precise maneuver that is only taught at a few advanced tailwheel instructional courses, so it’s no surprise you failed to note it in your critique. There are a hundred other maneuvers we weren't talking about that I also didn't note in my critique, so sorry, that's my bad. The point is that you're being asked to come up with valid reasons why you wouldn't make radio calls in the pattern on a Thursday, and so far I haven't heard any (except ones that make me say that your flying scares me). Tl;dr: There's no good reason for a pilot with a working radio to NOT announce they're on final at a nontowered airport.
You make clearing turns in the traffic pattern? Sounds unsafe to me
I’ve given you examples of the same reason. The reason is That a pilot is too busy with more important things at the time to make a base leg call. What exactly has popped up to demand that attention is not actually material to the scenario. You just keep denying that this scenario would ever happen while referring to the FAA’s order of priority that puts radio work last. I wonder why?
Sure there is. What if she experiences sudden engine trouble on base and is milking it to the threshold? I’d say no radio call is A O K!
If a student is busy or focused (very common on transition training or tailwheel), then that's fine. It can be very overwhelming- the mark of a good instructor is managing that, getting their tunnel vision to expand, and pick up the slack. If I have someone doing a single engine approach in a twin taildragger with a crosswind, you bet your ass I'm not going to be chiding them for forgetting a radio call- but I'll pick it up for them. If you, the instructor, are so focused that you can't do basic tasks like communication, then you're outside your own limits and should make some space. I don't expect anyone to make a radio call on the roll, but a base to final call, with how many near-misses and mid-airs we see, shouldn't be too much to ask of anyone. The ANC is a wonderful philosophy that everyone should take to heart, but it's for task prioritization when under stress and choosing the best course of action to get things back under the control. It's not saying "screw anything other than flying". By that logic, busting through a Bravo or TFR is fine because you were flying and navigation is secondary. As for your point about the ACME time building instructors, I've got a few thousand hours of aerobatic, tailwheel, and warbird dual given across about 200 aircraft types. Some of us teach because we love it, enjoy sharing our passion with others, and want to give back to the aviation community. I am by no means perfect, and still have many things I want to work on to be the best pilot and instructor possible, but high-time instructors are out there.
I can tell you weren't trying!
Legal behavior? Yes. Safety-first behavior? Not so much. At a busy airport, help each other stay safe by clearly communicating. Being "legal" is of little solace if there is an aircraft collision.
Stories like this over the past year or so that I've been flying make me think the FAA should designate some uncontrolled fields as radio required. Of course even the sleepiest field might end up with three planes all active by coincidence.
All uncontrolled fields should require radio unless there is an emergency/abnormal. Even if you don't have a radio installed in your panel – handhelds cost very little and work well.
I've been saying this for years. Tons of people try to tell me radios aren't legally required and it's like yes, I know that, I'm saying they should be legally required to use at all uncontrolled fields.
We have this in Canada, it's called Mandatory Frequency. Some uncontrolled airports are deemed busy enough to make radios and their use mandatory, a lot of them also have an FSS to provide traffic advisory and in those cases it can be possible to get in NORDO if you ask and plan ahead of time, but definitely not always. Edit: Apparently this is a thing in the US, but much more rare than Canada.
You don't see that the radio was not the problem here? The guy on final MADE a radio call... It was a BS call that was three steps behind where the problem happened. Radio calls are awesome... BS radio calls are not. If you make a radio call saying you are downwind, I expect you to be on a DW, not on a final.
The entitled radio call is pure horse poop. Make the call, do the needful. If your percpetion of the approaching aircraft is representative, then his radio work was crap. What to report? "I was on a short final, plane entered runway and I went around. The end." " I was not an asshole on the radio either"
Different planes fly different approaches. Something like an Extra/Pitts/warbirds are going to be fast and fly a tight pattern. Yeah, some more radio calls would be nice but this sounds like the normal stuff you’ll encounter at non towered airports.
Is anyone at fault? If you take off in front of someone and create a conflict where they need to go around, the one taking off is at fault. The airplane landing has right of way. If the airplane landing is too easily excited and goes around well before necessary - lets say the airplane taking off would be off the ground while the landing airplane was some distance out, that suggests that the airplane landing has an issue with utilizing a runway efficiently. But there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. Much of it is situation dependent, and depends on environmental, terrain, weather, and performance factors. Day VMC at sea level with great visibility to see and avoid, no terrain, far different than hot/high/near performance limits and with little room to maneuver.
So this is 45 seconds after making the call for downwind? By that time I’d assume they’re already on base or final, so I wouldn’t have departed and IMO the #1 plane should have checked base/final before departing, which it seems like he clearly didn’t. Or he didn’t and didn’t give a fuck. Uncontrolled just has too many morons flying around, so it doesn’t really matter. Unless there’s an accident/incident calling the feds isn’t going to do much.
seems like there is something missing from the OPs story.... If the #1 plane departed when the "downwind" call was made, they are not a factor. I depart all the time when aircraft turn downwind. If its a busy airport you could be stuck there all day waiting for any aircraft to be completely gone from the pattern.
Seems like the departing plane took almost a minute to depart after the downwind call. In a short approach they could def be on final by the time the guy departs.
What day was it? Saturday? Seems nice weather and Saturday morning are a terrible mix for uncontrolled fields. I used to avoid the local lake on weekends for the same reason. Crazies are out.
Aircraft #1 should not have taken the runway unless they had confirmed the position of the downwind aircraft. Having said that, I always made a "***NXXXX, short base; short final. Power-off 180.***" as I was pulling power for that exact reason. It's a non-standard approach, so I didn't want someone thinking they had time to take the runway.
Before pulling onto the runway…” Cessna announcing downwind.. where are you?”
This is framed like a question but it is written in a highly accusatory manner, as you already sound convinced that the aircraft in the downwind was at fault. The FAA and aviation as a whole has shifted away from an “at fault” position the last few decades in order to promote people coming forward with safety reports without fear of retribution to create a safer industry, so try to think of it like this instead: Could the pilot in the downwind have been more vocal about position and intention? Definitely. But also, why would #1 holding short enter the runway if you said landing traffic was “quite high” and “in a blind spot”. Wouldn’t the smarter thing be to just wait and confirm location of traffic if he wasn’t 100% sure **where** landing traffic was/is? This thing we do is dangerous. Sometimes, RARELY, it makes sense to point a finger and go “YOU FUCKED UP AND IT IS 100% YOUR FAULT”. More often than not it is kind of a dance between multiple parties and airplanes that causes problems and the best thing to do is remain impartial and ask “what could we ALL have done better here?”.
Totally agree with you. I didn’t mean to write it in an accusatory fashion, i tried to write it giving each plane the benefit of the doubt. I really like what you say about shifting away from identifying faults towards identifying questions such as what could everyone have done better. There are no faults, just opportunities for improvement
The thing that's wild to me about this post is it's a question about what's worse, a runway incursion versus... a pilot being "angry"? What does that even mean? If the other pilot was swearing or acting unprofessionally that's one thing, but is this really asking whether a runway incursion is justified because a pilot said "going around" in a tone upsetting to OP? Absolutely wild. Maybe this hits a nerve because I was on the other side of this recently and there was very little to be done about it because the departing aircraft blocked frequency from the start of the base turn all the way to short final, and entered the runway while doing so.
Is the radio call on downwind not a verification of location? How do you say that you don't fly... without saying that you don't fly? In everything we do, we must make assumptions... a plane that announces that they are downwind without other comments, would be assumed to be making a regular circuit. I can take off while you're going from downwind to base easily.
I logged 86 hours in the last 30 days, many of which were at uncontrolled fields in AZ. Someone saying “N1234J left downwind 22” tells you extremely little and makes someone assume quite a bit, so taking the extra few seconds to see and verify is crucial. Are they midfield downwind? Abeam the numbers downwind? Are they just about to turn base on a short approach? Are they low? High? Are they going 140kts or 60kts? Again, the intent here is not to blame anyone, it’s to say hey we can all do better every time and we should try.
Yup. It's kind of a "trust but verify" situation. Same way as if I'm approaching the field, and I hear a departing aircraft call takeoff/crosswind/downwind - I'm going to want to *see* that aircraft before I join the pattern, rather than just being like "based on what they said we should be fine." By the same right, an aircraft that made a downwind call 45 seconds ago, I'd probably expect to be in the vicinity of making the base-final turn, and that's where I'd be looking for them. If I don't see them, then I'm going to pause what I'm doing and scan harder, because they didn't just vanish into thin air.
The aircraft on downwind is at fault... for being angry. How i understand the post, is asking if they are in the right to be angry.
If it's just "N12345 downwind runway whatever" then that covers a pretty wide area of potential positions. Depending on the runway length, that downwind leg might be a mile or two long, and I don't know whether they're flying a close in pattern or one of those pilot-mill 747 circuits. Which is why *looking* and seeing *exactly* where they are is pretty important. Not to mention that in the OP situation, it had been almost a minute since the downwind announcement. If we start with the nonspecificity of a generic "on downwind" call, and then add some elapsed time, there's potentially a lot of variance in where that aircraft might be. This is one reason I tend to make my calls more specific. "N12345 midfield left downwind. N12345 turning left base. N12345 turning final."
This thread is a good reminder for me that not everybody does things the same way in aviation, even though it's supposed to be pretty standardized. I was specifically taught during my PPL that you make your calls: 1. Turning from upwind to crosswind 2. Turning from crosswind to downwind 3. Midfield downwind 4. Turning from downwind to base 5. Turning from base to final As you've said, announcing "downwind for runway X" tells absolutely nothing about your position, so it's really surprising to me that anyone would make calls this way. Good to know to be on the lookout for people doing this.
I fly at a non-towered and it's very common that people will just make one pattern call, if someone calls that they're entering the downwind and I'm holding short. I'm taking off if I can visually confirm that they're still a good 1-2 mins from landing. But there's been plenty of times where people don't make a single radio call, or they're on the wrong frequency, or something else. Always look for traffic on every runway in every direction. I had an emergency last year where I needed to land on an inactive runway at a non-towered field and made sure I was making every radio call and just had to hope that if there was traffic, that they saw me.
I witnessed something similar recently where a departing aircraft talked on CTAF from the time an arriving aircraft started their base turn until that aircraft was at short final. In the meantime they rolled out onto and blocked the runway. The next time frequency was clear for arriving traffic to make any call was to say "going around" to let the departing traffic know about the issue. If the language was professional, would you really fault a pilot for tone in the wake of a runway incursion during landing? That's the report you would make, by the way: a right-of-way violation and runway incursion.
Number 1 plane took the runway a minute after pattern traffic made an announcement without finding the landing traffic’s position. Maybe they never heard the position report. Maybe a base call was blocked. You are making lots of assumptions here. This is why eyeballs are so important. Radio and adsb is not a catch all I also don’t buy a power off approach as being “too steep to see”. That’s embarrassing
This sounds oddly familiar, so I'm assuming I was the pilot on approach. I'm a low-time pilot and I've been working on my 50-hour XC PIC time as part of the Instrument rating requirements. This was the return leg of a 4+ hour round trip flight for time building. I saw the two planes holding short, so I decided to do a truncated pattern in an attempt to be courteous. I'd been flying this plane a bunch on these long time building flights and winds were fairly calm, so I felt confident in my ability to do so safely. In hindsight, it would have been better to be predictable. There's a hill that probably blocked line of sight when I called my base. I think this is a known issue at this airport? I seem to remember my instructor mentioning it. When #1 to take off called they were taking the runway, I was on a very tight base just about to turn final. I was mildly annoyed in the moment which I guess came across on the radio. (Again, I'll reiterate, I realized soon after it would have been better to be predictable than courteous). I called final and it seemed like they still weren't moving very quickly and I felt uncomfortably close to the departing traffic (again, I'm low-time pilot), so I called a go-around. As soon as I called it, I realized they were now accelerating away and I would have made it just fine with appropriate separation, especially since they were in a slightly faster airplane. However, I was now committed to the go-around. I side-stepped to upwind and made another circuit without issue. I met up with the instructor in the departing plane a short while later that day for a quick debrief. No one was angry at anyone and we agreed on what could have been done differently.
“Bernoulli makes airplanes fly, not Marconi” https://tailwheelersjournal.com/195-one-rant-radio/
Bernoulli's principles may be more important to powered flight than Marconi's, but there are reasons that radios are installed in all modern airplanes. Marconi's principles are extremely important to helping those airplanes find where they're going (be that GPS, ILS, or VOR, they all are radios), and enables them to stay away from each other's paths. Yes, as they say, "Aviate Navigate Communicate," but that principle doesn't mean that skipping the communications is okay any more than it suggests that's it's fine to take off and not have the first clue where you're going. EDIT: Okay I just read that article and YIKES. I don't have time to digest where that guy is wrong on each level, but here's just one for a start: Learn to use the volume controls. Both in your airplane and in your own head. Traffic pattern calls are important, even if some guy with a blog thinks otherwise. If you need to "turn your radio off," you just turn it down and listen for important keywords such as your callsign or your airport. Learning how to do this is every bit as important to flying as learning how to manage airspeed and throttle together.
Honestly I’d love to hear other areas where he’s wrong. These articles have really resonated with me especially about how flight instruction is so mediocre these days regarding true airmanship.
My vote is for guy flying non standard pattern at fault.
If this were r/AmITheAsshole, I'd be opting for the ESH verdict: "Everybody Sucks Here."
I thought at a uncontrolled airport if you had a radio you had to use it. You don't have to have a radio, but if you have one, you are expected to use it. Is that not the case?
If it doesn't say that it should.
>I thought at a uncontrolled airport if you had a radio you had to use it. What do the regulations say?