non-towered airport question

[Snowbird]

What's the general viewpoint here?

A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
long.

Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
Later another plane joined him.

There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
the other. I'm still getting used to it.

When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
horizon.

Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
wasn't what I preferred initially.

I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
say you didn't"

However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
elsewhere.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Jay Honeck]

> However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
> what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
> elsewhere.

With three (well, okay, six) runways to choose from here at IOW, I always
try to follow the "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" rule of runway
selection, and I appreciate it when everyone else does, too.

This isn't a perfect strategy either, of course. For example, the wind can
change, and suddenly everyone is stuck using the "wrong" runway, simply due
to inertia. (This can make for some interesting plane watching -- not
everyone's cross-wind technique is as sharp as it could be! :-)

But having everyone on the same runway makes the pattern work the
smoothest -- which, ultimately, helps keep us all safe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Gardner]

No holds barred at an uncontrolled airport...but we all have to get along
together. If the preponderance of the traffic was using the short, my
feeling is that you should have joined them or gone somewhere else. Student
pilots (and I have to assume one or two in the pattern) have enough to be
concerned about without someone doing the unexpected. This applies to the
CFI flying with the student as well....although this is a learning
experience: "Look at that guy! What he is doing is legal, but not smart.
Keep your eyes on a swivel and expect the unexpected!!!"

Bob Gardner
"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> What's the general viewpoint here?
>
> A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
> like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
> airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
> at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
> short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
> The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
> or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
> long.
>
> Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
> the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
> the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
> look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
> Later another plane joined him.
>
> There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
> making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
> It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
> a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
> added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
> the other. I'm still getting used to it.
>
> When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
> relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
> the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
> would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
> horizon.
>
> Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
> Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
> for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
> and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
> wasn't what I preferred initially.
>
> I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
> I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
> land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
> came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
> the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
> to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
> concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
> safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
> and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
> say you didn't"
>
> However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
> what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
> elsewhere.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[C J Campbell]

As the pilot in command you must determine which runway is best for you at
an uncontrolled airport. You cannot relinquish this responsibility to a vote
from the other pilots. That does not mean that you ignore what everybody
else is doing. You still take that into account and sometimes it is safer to
settle for a less than optimum runway if collision avoidance is more
important. Since you said that traffic conflicts were not a problem in this
case, I think then you are safe in choosing whichever runway you want. If
conditions change and additional traffic warrants a change in runway, then
you should do that.

[R.Hubbell]

On 12 Jan 2004 17:59:09 -0800 (Snowbird) wrote:

> What's the general viewpoint here?
>
> A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
> like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
> airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
> at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
> short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
> The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
> or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
> long.
>
> Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
> the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
> the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
> look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
> Later another plane joined him.
>
> There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
> making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
> It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
> a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
> added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
> the other. I'm still getting used to it.
>
> When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
> relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
> the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
> would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
> horizon.
>
> Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
> Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
> for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
> and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
> wasn't what I preferred initially.


I think using the most active runway is the right thing to do.
It's what other pilots would expect and even though you had
things under control and using the other runway was easy for
you to handle for the other pilots it may have been too much
to deal with.

R. Hubbell

>
> I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
> I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
> land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
> came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
> the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
> to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
> concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
> safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
> and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
> say you didn't"
>
> However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
> what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
> elsewhere.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Mike Rapoport]

I think that you did great. You have every right to use any runway you
choose but it is also prudent to work with everyone else to make the best,
safest use of a public resource. At Minden we have four runways (two are
generally for glider use only). The tow planes almost always use 30 and the
powered planes 34 and landing gliders use 30, 30R or 21 but do not cross 34.
The powered planes get to use the longest runway with a VASI, the towplanes
get a runway where nobody is rushed to attach the gliders and the gliders
get a choice of three runways, one of which is almost certain to be
unoccupied. When there is a forest fire, the tankers land on 34 and takeoff
on 16. All this happens regardless of the wind unless it is really howling
and then very few are flying anyway.

Mike
MU-2


"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> What's the general viewpoint here?
>
> A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
> like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
> airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
> at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
> short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
> The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
> or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
> long.
>
> Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
> the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
> the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
> look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
> Later another plane joined him.
>
> There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
> making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
> It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
> a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
> added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
> the other. I'm still getting used to it.
>
> When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
> relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
> the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
> would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
> horizon.
>
> Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
> Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
> for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
> and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
> wasn't what I preferred initially.
>
> I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
> I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
> land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
> came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
> the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
> to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
> concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
> safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
> and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
> say you didn't"
>
> However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
> what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
> elsewhere.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Cub Driver]

>Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
>for the shorter runway?

I would have been very unhappy with the situation you describe. I stay
away from two-runway airports for just that reason!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>if collision avoidance is more
>important.

When would collision avoidance *not* be more important?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Snowbird]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<UwIMb.37328$na.29723@attbi_s04>...

> But having everyone on the same runway makes the pattern work the
> smoothest -- which, ultimately, helps keep us all safe.

Hi Jay,

I appreciate your POV, but actually I disagree. My target
airspeed on final is 10 knots faster than well-flown brand
P or C and I usually want to fly a tighter pattern, too. So
it's actually smoothest for me to "do my own thing". It's
actually easier to space properly with orthogonal separation.
There oughta be a little web-based simulator program to show
this -- can one add two airplanes to Tim's VOR simulator?

Safer, I think that very much depends upon the circumstances.
I think it's largely a feeling of familiarity "everybody going
in the same rectangle" which makes people feel safer, but I'm
not sure it really is. I think people relax too much with
radio calls and don't always really keep a proper look-out.
I've certainly broken out or broken off or done a sudden
dive maneuver when someone who just called "entering downwind"
showed up on base or the like. Just my opinion.

OTOH I don't want to P/O people just for grins, so if there's
a tendency to *perceive* it as safer, that's relevant.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Harry Gordon]

Whenever I am flying at a non-controlled airport, my primary runway will be
the one appropriate to the direction of the wind. If the wind changes, I
will change. Also if I hear other aircraft still making for the "original"
runway, I will advise them of the wind/preferred runway change.

If I want to do some x-wind landing practice on a different runway from the
preferred, I will clearly announce my intentions and what runway I will be
using. However, I always make sure that I do not interfere with other
pilots. Needless to say my outside scanning becomes much more intense in
this situation; you never know when an airplane will be NORDO.

Also, if the airport is busy on that particular day, I will defer my
practices until another time. I'm not necessarily offering that as a
suggestion, it's just the way I prefer. So far it has worked real well :-).

Harry
PP-ASEL

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> What's the general viewpoint here?
>
> A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
> like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
> airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
> at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
> short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
> The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
> or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
> long.
>
> Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
> the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
> the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
> look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
> Later another plane joined him.
>
> There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
> making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
> It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
> a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
> added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
> the other. I'm still getting used to it.
>
> When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
> relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
> the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
> would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
> horizon.
>
> Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
> Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
> for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
> and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
> wasn't what I preferred initially.
>
> I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
> I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
> land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
> came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
> the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
> to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
> concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
> safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
> and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
> say you didn't"
>
> However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
> what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
> elsewhere.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:<KAIMb.37603$8H.86299@attbi_s03>...
> No holds barred at an uncontrolled airport...but we all have to get along
> together. If the preponderance of the traffic was using the short, my
> feeling is that you should have joined them or gone somewhere else. Student
> pilots (and I have to assume one or two in the pattern) have enough to be
> concerned about without someone doing the unexpected. This applies to the
> CFI flying with the student as well....although this is a learning
> experience: "Look at that guy! What he is doing is legal, but not smart.
> Keep your eyes on a swivel and expect the unexpected!!!"

Well, I dunno what you consider "preponderance". When I arrived,
there was one chap who announced for the other runway, no other
observed traffic. He said "full stop", which led me to think he
was landing and tieing down and it didn't make much difference. I
realized after he took off again, he was just trying to differentiate
from "touch and go", and I'm not sure what he could have said which
would have made his intention to land and taxi back for continued
pattern work clear. "full stop, continued pattern work" might have
done it.

A second airplane which showed up said the same thing "full stop"
which again, led me to think he was landing and taxiing to his hangar,
not planning to taxi back and do pattern work.

After it was clear what they were doing and a third airplane called
in, I called them a preponderance :) and I did join them.

Frankly Bob and meaning no disrespect, if you're telling your
students this is unexpected or "not smart", you might be doing
them a disservice IMHO. I can remember my initial CFIs saying
similar things, and it led me to have a little "attitide" about
what people "ought" to do which later, more experienced CFIs
squelched, pointing out there are sometimes good reasons.

I used to be based at that airport, and twins regularly use the
longer runway while singles are on the shorter runway, because it
gives them more options -- I'm not a multi pilot, but I read about
"balanced runway length" and yadda yadda, so I assume most multi
pilots think it's smart to use a 3500 ft runway instead of a 2000
ft runway when it's available.

OTOH, if there's a kicking crosswind, is it smart for a Piper
pilot to just join the pattern with the long runway at a wind
level maybe he's not comfortable with, or to space himself
properly and land into the wind? I think one could argue the
latter as "smart".

At my home airport, many of the antiques and taildraggers prefer
to land on grass. So they'll use the grass runway even if the
wind favors the paved or is "6 of one half a dozen of the other".
I'm not a taildragger pilot either, but I assume some taildragger
pilots would think it's smart to land on grass if there's an Xwind
either way and the pilot/plane is more comfortable on grass.

In any case, it's common enough that I think it has to be considered
"expected".

Sydney

[Snowbird]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> As the pilot in command you must determine which runway is best for you at
> an uncontrolled airport. You cannot relinquish this responsibility to a vote
> from the other pilots. That does not mean that you ignore what everybody
> else is doing. You still take that into account and sometimes it is safer to
> settle for a less than optimum runway if collision avoidance is more
> important. Since you said that traffic conflicts were not a problem in this
> case, I think then you are safe in choosing whichever runway you want. If
> conditions change and additional traffic warrants a change in runway, then
> you should do that.

Thanks, CJ. That's pretty much what I did -- when it was clear both
other planes were doing pattern work, not just "full stop" landing
and taxiing home, and a third plane called in, that's what I did, join
the throng.

What would have been useful, in retrospect, is a way for the other
pilots to indicate their intention to do pattern work. When someone
says "T&G" that intention is clear. When someone says "full stop",
it tells us what they plan to do on the runway but nothing about
their later intentions.

OTOH I grasp from some other responses that there *is* a feeling of
discomfort from other pilots about using crossing runways, so I'll
take this into account.

There are definately airports where I would NOT use a crossing
runway because of terrain or obstructions or the way the patterns
intersect.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >if collision avoidance is more
> >important.

> When would collision avoidance *not* be more important?

Hi Cub,

As I said in another post: essentially, when other operational
characteristics of the airplane make a different runway safer
(I assume that's what CJ means).

For example: *longer runway for a twin or HP plane
*runway more aligned with the wind for a plane
with linked rudder/nosewheel
*grass runway for antique taildragger
*longer runway for testing after maintenance
*more I haven't thought of?

JMO, but actually I think the "improved collision avoidance"
of everyone in the same pattern is actually somewhat illusory,
unless everyone can fly the same pattern at the same speed or
unless the pattern is fairly full (more than a couple of planes).
I think if one draws out crossing patterns and tries to visualize
the vectors, it's clear there are only a couple of potential
conflict points. Avoid those and it's a no-brainer. With the
potential for overtaking traffic flying a different pattern, some
people flying 1000 ft pattern when the published altitude is 800
ft etc, when everyone's in the same pattern the entire pattern is
one big potential conflict point.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
> >for the shorter runway?

> I would have been very unhappy with the situation you describe. I stay
> away from two-runway airports for just that reason!

Thanks for your feedback, Dan. That's exactly why I posted.

Um -- but actually, isn't every airport a two-runway airport?

My personal nightmare scenario is an airport with left
traffic for one runway, right traffic for another. The
wind is calm or almost directly across, or else one pilot
decides to land or takeoff downwind for personal reasons.

That's not too bad if his plan is to take off and "get out
of Dodge Cowboy" but then for whatever reason he decides
to go around the patch.

Yipers!
Sydney

[Jim Fisher]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
> However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
> what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
> elsewhere.

Sanity is hereby checked, Sydney. You went with the flow as soon as a flow
made itself evident. If that wasn't fast enough for the pilot of the plane
that fussed, that aint' your problem.

--
Jim Fisher

[EDR]

In article >, Snowbird
> wrote:

Sydney, tell us what airport it is so we can look at an airport diagram.

[Bob Gardner]

Last things first...I prefer grass to paved in taildraggers as well. Ref the
into-the-wind vs crosswind question, the answer is obviously to land into
the wind...I would go so far as to say "Piper 12345 on final, runway 21,
into the wind" just to get the message across.

Balanced field length applies to jets.

I guess I read more into your original post than was there...I had this
mental picture of a bunch of folks using one runway while you used another,
which is your right to do. I still see it as a learning situation for any
students in the pattern, because they are just learning what a pattern is,
how it relates to the runway in use, etc and are not far enough into the
game to understand why doing something else might be preferable.

Bob

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:<KAIMb.37603$8H.86299@attbi_s03>...
> > No holds barred at an uncontrolled airport...but we all have to get
along
> > together. If the preponderance of the traffic was using the short, my
> > feeling is that you should have joined them or gone somewhere else.
Student
> > pilots (and I have to assume one or two in the pattern) have enough to
be
> > concerned about without someone doing the unexpected. This applies to
the
> > CFI flying with the student as well....although this is a learning
> > experience: "Look at that guy! What he is doing is legal, but not smart.
> > Keep your eyes on a swivel and expect the unexpected!!!"
>
> Well, I dunno what you consider "preponderance". When I arrived,
> there was one chap who announced for the other runway, no other
> observed traffic. He said "full stop", which led me to think he
> was landing and tieing down and it didn't make much difference. I
> realized after he took off again, he was just trying to differentiate
> from "touch and go", and I'm not sure what he could have said which
> would have made his intention to land and taxi back for continued
> pattern work clear. "full stop, continued pattern work" might have
> done it.
>
> A second airplane which showed up said the same thing "full stop"
> which again, led me to think he was landing and taxiing to his hangar,
> not planning to taxi back and do pattern work.
>
> After it was clear what they were doing and a third airplane called
> in, I called them a preponderance :) and I did join them.
>
> Frankly Bob and meaning no disrespect, if you're telling your
> students this is unexpected or "not smart", you might be doing
> them a disservice IMHO. I can remember my initial CFIs saying
> similar things, and it led me to have a little "attitide" about
> what people "ought" to do which later, more experienced CFIs
> squelched, pointing out there are sometimes good reasons.
>
> I used to be based at that airport, and twins regularly use the
> longer runway while singles are on the shorter runway, because it
> gives them more options -- I'm not a multi pilot, but I read about
> "balanced runway length" and yadda yadda, so I assume most multi
> pilots think it's smart to use a 3500 ft runway instead of a 2000
> ft runway when it's available.
>
> OTOH, if there's a kicking crosswind, is it smart for a Piper
> pilot to just join the pattern with the long runway at a wind
> level maybe he's not comfortable with, or to space himself
> properly and land into the wind? I think one could argue the
> latter as "smart".
>
> At my home airport, many of the antiques and taildraggers prefer
> to land on grass. So they'll use the grass runway even if the
> wind favors the paved or is "6 of one half a dozen of the other".
> I'm not a taildragger pilot either, but I assume some taildragger
> pilots would think it's smart to land on grass if there's an Xwind
> either way and the pilot/plane is more comfortable on grass.
>
> In any case, it's common enough that I think it has to be considered
> "expected".
>
> Sydney

[gross_arrow]

(Snowbird) wrote in message >...
> What's the general viewpoint here?
>
> Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
> Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
> for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
> and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
> wasn't what I preferred initially.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

i suppose there might be some consideration due to "local
practice", but generally (and legally) speaking, there was
nothing wrong with what you did.

i'm based at an airport with 4 strips of concrete (although
two are currently closed for construction.) it is not unusual
for three of them to be "in use" more or less simulataneously.
everybody has to keep a sharp lookout, and radio communication
definitely helps here (although sometimes there is a nordo in the
mix, too.) i soloed a student last spring during what i thought was
a lull in the traffic -- but the lull didn't last long. on his second
trip around the pattern, he was #4 on downwind, with a warbird
entering the pattern for another runway, and another warbird
overflying the field. (frequently the warbird pilots like to use
what i call "pseudo military" radio calls, like "north american 65c
is on the overhead break for runway one-seven".) i usually just
tell early on students that if they don't understand the radio call,
just treat the plane as nordo and keep their eyes peeled. :-)
anyway, the student did just fine, merged in like a pro and was
on top of the whole situation.

otoh, once when up with a student we were ~8 miles east (there's
another airport ~10 east), and we saw this yahoo take off and
turn west before he got to the end of the runway (couldn't have
been more than 200 agl). we sorta followed him from above, and
about half-way between the airports he called my home a.p. and
announced "2 mile straight in for one-seven". first of all, he was
~5 out, 2nd he was 90 deg from 1-7, and third, there were about
4 or 5 planes in the pattern for 1-7. after several of the planes in
the pattern queried the new arrival and couldn't get satisfactory
information, one pattern plane did a full stop instead of t&g, and
the rest exited the pattern in various directions. i guess the moral
is that one jerk can foul up everybody who is cooperating and
working together.

g_a

[Snowbird]

"Harry Gordon" > wrote in message >...
> Whenever I am flying at a non-controlled airport, my primary runway will be
> the one appropriate to the direction of the wind. If the wind changes, I
> will change.

What if others are still using the "original" runway?

> If I want to do some x-wind landing practice on a different runway from the
> preferred, I will clearly announce my intentions

Not meaning to pick, just curious: do you really announce
"Pepsi County traffic, Cessna 12345 entering left downwind
for 34 for crosswind landing practice" or some such?

My personal tick on UNICOM is not being able to make necessary
traffic calls in a timely manner because someone is taking up
the frequency with a lengthy announcement full of unnecessary
information. Of course, students gotta learn, but it's often
not students I hear doing it.

> Needless to say my outside scanning becomes much more intense in
> this situation; you never know when an airplane will be NORDO.

Just to point out that your outside scanning should be IMHO
as intense as you can make it at all times. You never know when
a NORDO aircraft is going to perceive an operational advantage
in using a different runway than you prefer, at any time. You
also never know when someone is going to say one thing and show
up somewhere else. I have to admit I'm usually not directionally
challenged but I've been known to make directionally-challenged
radio calls myself.

> Also, if the airport is busy on that particular day, I will defer my
> practices until another time.

Well, how do you define busy? One other aircraft? Two? Four?
Seven?

Cheers,
Sydney

[John Galban]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:<KAIMb.37603$8H.86299@attbi_s03>...
> No holds barred at an uncontrolled airport...but we all have to get along
> together. If the preponderance of the traffic was using the short, my
> feeling is that you should have joined them or gone somewhere else. Student
> pilots (and I have to assume one or two in the pattern) have enough to be
> concerned about without someone doing the unexpected. This applies to the
> CFI flying with the student as well....although this is a learning
> experience: "Look at that guy! What he is doing is legal, but not smart.
> Keep your eyes on a swivel and expect the unexpected!!!"
>

I would agree that if there were a lot of traffic, you should go
somewhere else. Sydney's post describes what I would consider to be a
very light load. Two aircraft doing full-stop, taxi backs. When it
got up to three, she went with the flow.

When I was a student, I actually was exposed to using a different
runway with light traffic on another. Most commonly to do crosswind
landing practice. I was also taught not to go with the flow if the
flow is wrong (i.e. strong wind favoring different runway).

I visit quite a few not-towered airports where more than one runway
is used simultaneously. 99 times out of 100, no one has a problem as
long as you announce and coordinate. Every now and then, some pattern
cop will object to someone using a different runway, but as long as
there is no conflict, they're generally ignored.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Harry Gordon]

> > Whenever I am flying at a non-controlled airport, my primary runway will
be
> > the one appropriate to the direction of the wind. If the wind changes, I
> > will change.
>
> What if others are still using the "original" runway?

One of the "problems" with posting to newsgroups is if you leave something
out, it is automatically assumed the writer doesn't do it :-). Thus far,
when that situation has occurred, and the other aircraft haven't made the
adjustment, I will broadcast a CTAF message about the wind/runway change.
Thus far the other aircraft have all followed suit and adjusted to the new
runway. I haven't had the "opportunity" of someone refusing to change.

>
> > If I want to do some x-wind landing practice on a different runway from
the
> > preferred, I will clearly announce my intentions
>
> Not meaning to pick, just curious: do you really announce
> "Pepsi County traffic, Cessna 12345 entering left downwind
> for 34 for crosswind landing practice" or some such?

Yes. That is exactly what I do when 34 is NOT the desired runway for the
given wind direction. I would rather use an extra 2 seconds of air time and
avoid a potiential problem.

>
> My personal tick on UNICOM is not being able to make necessary
> traffic calls in a timely manner because someone is taking up
> the frequency with a lengthy announcement full of unnecessary
> information. Of course, students gotta learn, but it's often
> not students I hear doing it.

Where I fly, the radio "problems" I have encountered isn't so much a long
winded pilot but having to put up with the radio traffic coming from other
uncontrolled airports :-(.

About the only time I get frustrated with the radio traffic is going into a
Class-C airspace and the controllers are so busy I have to go into a
"holding pattern" while waiting to establish communications with them.

>
> > Needless to say my outside scanning becomes much more intense in
> > this situation; you never know when an airplane will be NORDO.
>
> Just to point out that your outside scanning should be IMHO
> as intense as you can make it at all times.

See, there you go trying to read between the lines :-)). One day, I had a
C172 take the runway for departure AFTER I had announced turning final for
that runway. I had to do a go-around. Trust me, I am ALWAYS watching. :-)

>>You never know when
> a NORDO aircraft is going to perceive an operational advantage
> in using a different runway than you prefer, at any time. You
> also never know when someone is going to say one thing and show
> up somewhere else. I have to admit I'm usually not directionally
> challenged but I've been known to make directionally-challenged
> radio calls myself.

You too??? :-) At least I don't feel like the Lone Ranger now. I still have
a hard time deciding if I am approaching from the S.E., N.W., S.W., etc.

>
> > Also, if the airport is busy on that particular day, I will defer my
> > practices until another time.
>
> Well, how do you define busy? One other aircraft? Two? Four?
> Seven?

That is a hard question to answer. I just depends on what the other aircraft
are doing. I have left the area with 2 in the pattern and have stayed with
as many as 5. But, if it is "busy" I will not deviate from the pattern that
the others are using. When I was a student, our practice area wasn't too far
from the uncontrolled airport we would practice our landings/TOs. What I
would do is fly over to the practice area for some other practice and then
return back to the airport when the other aircraft went home.

Sydney, where to you fligh out of primarily?

Happy flying,

Harry

[Ron Lee]

>My personal nightmare scenario is an airport with left
>traffic for one runway, right traffic for another. The
>wind is calm or almost directly across, or else one pilot
>decides to land or takeoff downwind for personal reasons..
>
>Yipers!
>Sydney

Happens here (00V) a lot. Glider activity to the west so 15 has left
traffic and 33 right traffic. Not to mention all sorts of different
approaches, different or no radio callout and this airport is
potentially dangerous.

Ron Lee

[Richard Hertz]

Why did you choose the longer rwy when the wind favored the shorter one?
Unless you are doing xwind practice I think using the wind as a precedent is
most prudent. You have every right to use a runway of your choosing, but
the decision making ability has to be good as well.

You mention in another post about 10kts airspeed difference. What is the
reason for that and what plane is that?

What were the winds and what were the rwy headings and lengths?

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> What's the general viewpoint here?
>
> A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
> like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
> airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
> at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
> short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
> The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
> or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
> long.
>
> Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
> the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
> the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
> look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
> Later another plane joined him.
>
> There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
> making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
> It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
> a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
> added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
> the other. I'm still getting used to it.
>
> When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
> relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
> the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
> would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
> horizon.
>
> Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
> Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
> for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
> and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
> wasn't what I preferred initially.
>
> I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
> I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
> land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
> came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
> the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
> to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
> concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
> safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
> and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
> say you didn't"
>
> However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
> what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
> elsewhere.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Dave Russell]

(Snowbird) wrote in message >...
> What's the general viewpoint here?
>
> Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
> the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
> the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
> look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.

Sydney, thanks for a nice thread.

At my home base it's routine for me to be on the turf runway, into the
wind, while everyone else uses the pavement with a 90-degree
crosswind.

You are PIC. It's not just your right but your responsibility to do
what you think is safest for you and your airplane. If somebody else
has a different idea about what's safe for you, listen to what they
might say, think about it, and then go back to Rule #1: You are PIC.

-Dave Russell
8KCAB

p.s. I posted a few months back about somebody who didn't think like I
do. He taxied right out in front of me while I was rolling for
take-off, oblivious to the fact that there actually was a runway
aligned with the wind. It was a very close thing. Even now I know I
was right to use the runway pointed into the wind, but that wouldn't
have saved us if I'd hit him. I don't know what this is supposed to
mean, but somehow it feels relevant. :-|

[Snowbird]

"Harry Gordon" > wrote in message >...
> > > Whenever I am flying at a non-controlled airport, my primary runway will
> be
> > > the one appropriate to the direction of the wind. If the wind changes, I
> > > will change.

> > What if others are still using the "original" runway?

> One of the "problems" with posting to newsgroups is if you leave something
> out, it is automatically assumed the writer doesn't do it :-). Thus far,
> when that situation has occurred, and the other aircraft haven't made the
> adjustment, I will broadcast a CTAF message about the wind/runway change.

Perhaps I'm not clear enough on the scenario I'm thinking of.
I'm not thinking of you being the guy "established" in the pattern,
but rather of the following scenario:

You are approaching a non-towered airport. There are several
aircraft in the pattern for runway 18, happily making circuits.
You observe that the wind actually favors runway 27.

Are you saying you approach the airport with an announcement
"Podunk traffic, Cessna 1234, the wind appears to favor runway
27, so that should be the active runway now" or something to that
effect (what exactly would you say?) and so far, everyone just
changes to runway 27 and you join them?

Or are you saying you'd broadcast that you're landing on 27 because
that's the runway the wind favors, and everyone else would break off
their pattern and follow you?

> Yes. That is exactly what I do when 34 is NOT the desired runway for the
> given wind direction. I would rather use an extra 2 seconds of air time and
> avoid a potiential problem.

OK, now I'm curious here again. How do you see broadcasting your
reasons for choosing the runway you are using as "avoiding a potential
problem"?

> > > Needless to say my outside scanning becomes much more intense in
> > > this situation; you never know when an airplane will be NORDO.

> > Just to point out that your outside scanning should be IMHO
> > as intense as you can make it at all times.

> See, there you go trying to read between the lines :-)).

Um, Harry -- no offense intended here, but when you say "my
outside scanning becomes much more intense in this situation",
I don't think there's much reading between the lines going on
on my part. Perhaps you need to adjust what you write, to
better match what you mean?

My point is, I don't think it's a situation calling for a
beyond-normal level of alertness, because it's a situation
which could always be occuring without notice.

> You too??? :-) At least I don't feel like the Lone Ranger now. I still have
> a hard time deciding if I am approaching from the S.E., N.W., S.W., etc.

Me too. Actually I know what direction I'm approaching
from but my brain has been known to disengage before the words
emerge from my mouth "southeast--um, sorry, no, northwest--"
(and there I go, exhibiting the peeve my fingers warned us against)
It's a consistant trait of mine, I mis-speak in other walks of life.
I would make a horrible ATCS, or any other profession which had to
talk for a living!

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:<GyVMb.43941$5V2.61806@attbi_s53>...
> I guess I read more into your original post than was there...I had this
> mental picture of a bunch of folks using one runway while you used another,
> which is your right to do.

Well, that is what wound up happening, but it wasn't so clear-cut
as several planes established in the pattern when I arrived.

It was very clear that the wind favored the runway they were using.

> I still see it as a learning situation for any
> students in the pattern

That's definately true, and I probably wasn't clear enough
about my point so let me try to restate it in a better way.

As a student, I had instructors say similar things to me along the
lines of "this isn't what a pilot ought to do, it isn't smart, but
it will happen so you need to watch for it". And I was very nervous
when I was in the pattern and other aircraft arrived and used a
different runway.

As a private pilot, one of the instructors I worked with
drew the traffic patterns for the two runways and we worked
our way around them with what altitude a plane would likely
be at at each point, and identified where the conflict
points were. It quickly became clear that barring unusual
behavior like a chap turning at 200 AGL, there are only a
couple of conflict points and they can readily be avoided
with a bit of care. So after that it was a matter of "OK,
when this happens, this is what I watch for and this is how
I should time it" and it was much less stressful to me.

I'm still less comfortable with our new home airport because
both runways have right traffic in one direction and left in
the other, and there are more potential conflict points so
it's not as clear to me how to time it.

That's what I meant when I said perhaps it's doing the students
a disservice to tell them it's unexpected and not smart. I'm
know you're right that they need to focus on the basics of what
is a pattern and what they should be doing when, but I think
it's a common enough situation that they should just be prepared
to watch for it and meet it.

Best,
Sydney

[Blanche]

My worst complaint is the pilot (not from the area) who insists on doing
a left pattern when the AF/D and the sectionals all explicitly state
right pattern. Why? Because FTG is cozy in the SE corner of DEN's
class B. A mile west or a mile north, and you're violating the
Class B surfact airspace.

And when the pilot is reminded about the right traffic, he (why is
it *always* a man?) responds "not in my book!"

We get one of these every month or so.

[David Johnson]

My pet peeve is the motormouth types who clog the CTAF with
personal chatter that has little or nothing to do with the
safety of flight. Some of these folks aren't even flying -
and seem to think the CTAF is a personal CB channel. The
temptation to become "voluntary NORDO" is quite strong at
the airport I have in mind.

Equally annoying is the Class C scenario in which you can't
get a word in edgewise due to the congestion on frequency.
Sometimes it is simply too many aircraft coming and going at once.
Other times there is the stuck mike or the pilot with a limited
command of English, or somebody who takes 100 words to say what
a the average person could say in ten.

David Johnson

[Harry Gordon]

> Perhaps I'm not clear enough on the scenario I'm thinking of.
> I'm not thinking of you being the guy "established" in the pattern,
> but rather of the following scenario:
>
> You are approaching a non-towered airport. There are several
> aircraft in the pattern for runway 18, happily making circuits.
> You observe that the wind actually favors runway 27.
>
> Are you saying you approach the airport with an announcement
> "Podunk traffic, Cessna 1234, the wind appears to favor runway
> 27, so that should be the active runway now" or something to that
> effect (what exactly would you say?) and so far, everyone just
> changes to runway 27 and you join them?
>
> Or are you saying you'd broadcast that you're landing on 27 because
> that's the runway the wind favors, and everyone else would break off
> their pattern and follow you?
>

When I or others have announced a wind change, there has never been an issue
about switching to another runway. Communications are brief and contain the
relative information: "Podunk traffic, Cessna 1234, new wind direction 250,
perferred runway now 27, Podunk."

Thus far, no one has refused to adjust their pattern to the new runway. In
fact, I have seen pilots turn their planes around on the ground and taxi to
another runway because of a wind change that was announced by another pilot.


> OK, now I'm curious here again. How do you see broadcasting your
> reasons for choosing the runway you are using as "avoiding a potential
> problem"?
>

Remember, you broadcast your position, intentions, etc., regardless of
whether or not there are other aircraft in the pattern. The reason I
broadcast my message is to eliminate the possible confusion (maybe I should
have used that word rather than "problem") over an airplane approaching the
field who has listened to AWOS, obtained the wind direction and determined
what runway they will be using. And then when they switch to CTAF have them
hear me using a different runway. It also gives them the ability to contact
me if they so desire. And be assured that I NEVER us a non-preferred runway
for x-wind practice when other aircraft are using the field (of course if
they are NORAD, then I can't respond to their approaching until I see them.)

Perhaps I need to say this since we don't know each other. I consider myself
a very "sky friendly" pilot. When I fly, I fly with other pilots in the sky.
I will not do anything that jeperdizes either their safety nor mine - at
least intentionally :-). I guess I am becoming confused over whether your
challenging what I do or if you're looking for rationale for making your
flying experiences better.


> > See, there you go trying to read between the lines :-)).
>
>.... Perhaps you need to adjust what you write, to
> better match what you mean?
>

Perhaps your right. Before I retired I spent over 35 years in jobs requiring
intensive writing skills, you would think that I could be a little clearer
wouldn't you? :-). I guess the problem with communicating in these
newsgroups is the fundmental principle of written/verbal communications -
know your audience and then taylor your communications to that audience.

No two people who post to this newsgroup have the same background. Everyone
is different. Some are very young and some are retired; some are fresh
students and others have tens-of-thousands of flying hours and hold every
rating in the book, not to mention those in between; some have great
communication skills, others..., well you get the idea. Added to that is the
frame-of-mind the writer/reader is in at the time the writting/reading takes
place. That frame-of-mind will determine the inflection given to words as
they are written/read (that is referred to as tone-of-font). What the reader
perceives as the "tone" may not in any way reflect that of the writer's.
Unfortunately, the definition of communications is not what is written or
said but what is perceived by the receiver to have been written or said.

I hope we're communicating. :-)

Harry

[Snowbird]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message >...
> Why did you choose the longer rwy when the wind favored the shorter one?

Liked the color ;). Sorry to be sarcastic, but my question
had to do with how other pilots regard the use of 2 runways
at once, and I sense a theme here of wanting to microanalyze
my decision making process and the specific situation, which
isn't my personal interest.

> Unless you are doing xwind practice

Good "unless"

> I think using the wind as a precedent is most prudent.

See other posts giving reasons why other runways might be
more prudent (besides xwind landing practice).

> You mention in another post about 10kts airspeed difference. What is the
> reason for that and what plane is that?

Higher stall speed, dramatically higher sink rate approaching stall,
Grumman. It's SOP taught in the type-club pilot fam course. Cruise
speed is also 10-20 kts faster.

> What were the winds and what were the rwy headings and lengths?

I have no idea -- nothing too kicky, 10-12 kts? They were fairly
variable. 36, ~3500 27, 2000. I can land on the 2000 ft runway
and make the half-way turnoff without touching the brakes.

[Snowbird]

Blanche > wrote in message >...
> My worst complaint is the pilot (not from the area) who insists on doing
> a left pattern when the AF/D and the sectionals all explicitly state
> right pattern. Why? Because FTG is cozy in the SE corner of DEN's
> class B. A mile west or a mile north, and you're violating the
> Class B surfact airspace.

Similar situation at our home airport. Left traffic for two of the
runways snugs you up very close to Class B.

> And when the pilot is reminded about the right traffic, he (why is
> it *always* a man?) responds "not in my book!"

*hee* *hee*

Is there a directional indicator around the windsock? I'd have
trouble not responding "see those little yellow thingies circling
the windsock down there?"

Yeah, and then there's published TPA of 800 ft but all the planes
who insist on flying at 1000.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Ron Lee]

(Snowbird) wrote:
>
>> And when the pilot is reminded about the right traffic, he (why is
>> it *always* a man?) responds "not in my book!"
>
>*hee* *hee*
>
>Cheers,
>Sydney

I cannot accept that guys are doing this. It is well known that women
have a genetic disposition to mixing "left" and "right".

Ok folks, lighten up. Women are wonderful.

Ron "I live in Pakistan" Lee

[aaronw]

On 13 Jan 2004 07:09:14 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>My personal nightmare scenario is an airport with left
>traffic for one runway, right traffic for another. The
>wind is calm or almost directly across, or else one pilot
>decides to land or takeoff downwind for personal reasons.

FME has this scenario (L traffic for 28, R traffic for 10). This is
done to keep us out of BWI's class B (and some might say avoid
overflying the NSA as well...)

Luckily(?), we have 123.05 as our CTAF, and people tend to be pretty
good about the radio calls. Notwithstanding you *have* to have a
radio around DC these days... With the 123.05, the only other airport
that interferes is way up in PA somewhere, and you can't hear them
from the ground. You can sometimes hear them in the pattern, but
they're real faint. However, due to some twist of fate, they also
have runways 10/28... So CTAF is usually pretty easy to understand
(unlike 122.8/122.7)...

aw

[Ron Hammer]

Sound like you did ok. You made your radio calls and watched for
traffic. When you thought it would be a problem you switched runways.
You said 2 other planes joined. If they did not like what they heard
(planes
using 2 differnt runways) they could have not entered the pattern for
practice.
Ron


(Snowbird) wrote in message >...
> What's the general viewpoint here?
>
> A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
> like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
> airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
> at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
> short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
> The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
> or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
> long.
>
> Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
> the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
> the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
> look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
> Later another plane joined him.
>
> There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
> making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
> It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
> a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
> added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
> the other. I'm still getting used to it.
>
> When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
> relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
> the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
> would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
> horizon.
>
> Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
> Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
> for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
> and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
> wasn't what I preferred initially.
>
> I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
> I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
> land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
> came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
> the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
> to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
> concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
> safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
> and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
> say you didn't"
>
> However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
> what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
> elsewhere.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney

[Snowbird]

(Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) wrote:
> >
> >> And when the pilot is reminded about the right traffic, he (why is
> >> it *always* a man?) responds "not in my book!"

> I cannot accept that guys are doing this. It is well known that women
> have a genetic disposition to mixing "left" and "right".

Actually, Ron, I *have* a genetic disposition to mixing up
"left" and "right", not because I'm a girl but because I'm
a southpaw and I've been reversing directions given for the
right hand all my life.

But what Blanche and I were chuckling over wasn't the
confusion between "right" and "left" but the unwillingness
to accept a friendly, polite correction.

Whether that's really a male pilot trait I leave to each person's
experience :)

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Harry Gordon" > wrote in message >...

> When I or others have announced a wind change, there has never been an issue
> about switching to another runway. Communications are brief and contain the
> relative information: "Podunk traffic, Cessna 1234, new wind direction 250,
> perferred runway now 27, Podunk."

Hi Harry,

No, I'm not trying to challenge or criticize what you do, just to
understand it and how it applies to situations I'm thinking about.

I can't personally imagine that I would approach an airport where
other planes are already landing in the pattern, listen to AWOS or
look at the wind sock and decide that the wind favors a different
runway, and then make an announcement about "preferred runway now
so and so". I'm not trying to criticize what you say you do, just
to understand it. Personally for me making an announcement about
which runway is preferred to other pilots, would seem like hubris,
especially if I'm the one approaching the airport and they're
already there. I might query which runway the wind favors or
overfly to have a look for myself if there seems to be a discrepency
and I'm not willing to "go with the flow".

I've seen aircraft change which way they're taxiing on the ground.
Done it myself. It's changing direction in the pattern which is
the 'big deal' IMO, especially if the airport is R traffic one way
and L traffic the other (very common around here). If several planes
are established in the pattern for one runway, I'm not sure it's the
safest course of action for them all to switch.

> > OK, now I'm curious here again. How do you see broadcasting your
> > reasons for choosing the runway you are using as "avoiding a potential
> > problem"?

> Remember, you broadcast your position, intentions, etc., regardless of
> whether or not there are other aircraft in the pattern. The reason I
> broadcast my message is to eliminate the possible confusion (maybe I should
> have used that word rather than "problem") over an airplane approaching the
> field who has listened to AWOS, obtained the wind direction and determined
> what runway they will be using. And then when they switch to CTAF have them
> hear me using a different runway. It also gives them the ability to contact
> me if they so desire.

Well, any communication gives them the ability to contact you so that
seems a moot point wrt broadcasting an explanation of what you're
doing
(do you do this on each leg, or just once per circuit?) vs simply
making standard pattern calls.

But thank you, I think I understand your concern now; you're worried
that
someone will think the AWOS is wrong and the wind favors the runway
you're
using? I'll consider that -- it may be a valid point worth a couple
words. OTOH, I really feel there are a number of valid reasons to
choose the runway which is not aligned with the wind and not all
of them lend themselves to two-word radio calls.

> And be assured that I NEVER us a non-preferred runway
> for x-wind practice when other aircraft are using the field

OK, so this answers the question I asked you earlier. You said
you would never do x-wind practice when the airport is "busy".
I asked "what do you consider busy?".

Now it looks like your answer is, you would never do crosswind
practice when there is one other aircraft in the pattern or
approaching
the airport to land. If I understand you correctly, if you're already
in the pattern, and someone else approaches the airport and
announces "wind from 300 preferred runway now 270" you would
break off your pattern and join the pattern for the other runway
and land there.

I'm not trying to criticize at all; if that's what you feel
comfortable
with, go for it. But I hope you can understand that for other people,
that may not seem too practical or even too desireable, and their
idea of what's "busy" may differ from yours.

> When I fly, I fly with other pilots in the sky.
> I will not do anything that jeperdizes either their safety nor
> mine - at least intentionally :-).

Well, I would say the same. But clearly I do some things differently
and see some things differently. And there are other pilots who do
and see things still differently from both of us.

I think the problem arises when some people take the attitude
that they have the book on safety and anyone who sees things
differently is "jeopardizing their safety or mine". Please note
I'm not saying I see this attitude from you in what you're writing
here, just that I see this attitude as a problem in and of itself.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

Below is an email from the Luscombe List. I think the contents pertain to
this issue, and in light of the current media hype, I think it's rather
profound.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

Good morning, list...
I went flying late yesterday after work.
Drove an hour on the Interstate to get to the airport.
Along with three thousand of my best friends...with attitudes.
Did not ask anyone.
Did not tell anyone.
Just unlocked the hangar, did a good preflight, pushed it out on the ramp,
tied the little beast down, swung the prop., and climbed in.
I could have gone anywhere the fuel on board would have let me...about 250
miles, according to the stick I dipped into the gas tanks.
Really high-tech. stuff.
I chose to stay in the pattern and work on my crash and goes.
Talked on the radio to the other planes with radios.
Or the ones that chose to turn their radios on.
An experimental aircraft announced his arrival (Thorp T-18, I believe from
the bent-wings) and flew in to join in the jolly circuits around the runway.
A Cutlass, a Cherokee, the requisite 152, the experimental, and myself all
stayed together, and all got along quite nicely going around and around.
A Skylane joined us for an instrument approach, and we all worked around
him.
A Piper Cub (L-4?) was doing touch and goes on the grass parallel to the
runway...no radio, camouflaged paint, never got above 100', never further
than 500' from the runway, he made four landing to every one of ours.
He doin' his thing.
They doin' theirs.
Me doin' mine.
All enjoying the privilege and freedom of flight.
In the United States of America.
(Actually, God's country here in Texas)
All of us without the luxury of lights quit flying when it got dark.
Duh.
No problem.
No government "controlled airport".
Just common sense, cooperation, good judgment, and respect for each other.
And, get this...I actually carried my pocket knife in my jeans.
Visited with my airport hangar neighbors...you all know the
drill...altogether an enjoyable evening.
Pushed the semi-shiny little thing back in the hangar.
Locked the door (what a concept).
Looked at my watch, and drove home during Dan Rather Time.
I wonder how much longer until this kind of a day becomes just a memory?
bye,
Howard
48-A, square, bare, no pants.

[Harry Gordon]

Good afternoon, Sydney.

I think we are both on the "same page" and if not, at least we are getting
there :-). If you go to an aviation book store, don't look for a book
authored by me - you won't find one :-).

> I can't personally imagine that I would approach an airport where
> other planes are already landing in the pattern, listen to AWOS or
> look at the wind sock and decide that the wind favors a different
> runway, and then make an announcement about "preferred runway now
> so and so".

Nor would I. I'm sorry if that was the impression I gave. I have made that
announcement when in the pattern or on the ground and noticed the change in
the windsock and even then not before confirming the wind change with AWOS.
So far, no one that was in the pattern with me has objected to the
announcement or refused to make an adjustment. In fact, several have
responded with a quick "thank you, changing to runway XX".

>......If several planes
> are established in the pattern for one runway, I'm not sure it's the
> safest course of action for them all to switch.

On one ocassion there were 3 of us and we all switched without any problem.
I would submit that either everyone changes or no one changes and it has
nothing to do with who noticed/announced the wind direction change; it has
to do with safety.

>
>
> But thank you, I think I understand your concern now; you're worried
> that
> someone will think the AWOS is wrong and the wind favors the runway
> you're
> using? I'll consider that -- it may be a valid point worth a couple
> words.

That is correct.

> OTOH, I really feel there are a number of valid reasons to
> choose the runway which is not aligned with the wind and not all
> of them lend themselves to two-word radio calls.

Oh, absolutely. I completely agree.

>
> > And be assured that I NEVER us a non-preferred runway
> > for x-wind practice when other aircraft are using the field
>
> OK, so this answers the question I asked you earlier. You said
> you would never do x-wind practice when the airport is "busy".
> I asked "what do you consider busy?".

If you got the idea that my definition of "busy" should be the universal
definition, I'm sorry I gave that impression. My definition is MY definition
and certainly subject to change given the situation. What I mean is there is
no standard or set parameters that determine when an aiport is busy. For me,
I take into consideration the number of aircraft, the types of flying being
done, the weather, and how I feel at that moment.

>
> Now it looks like your answer is, you would never do crosswind
> practice when there is one other aircraft in the pattern or
> approaching
> the airport to land.


If I had to use a non-preferred runway for the practice - that is correct.
When there are other aircraft in the pattern or soon will be in the pattern,
everyone has to work together or there will be a great potential for
unexpected "opportunities."


> If I understand you correctly, if you're already
> in the pattern, and someone else approaches the airport and
> announces "wind from 300 preferred runway now 270" you would
> break off your pattern and join the pattern for the other runway
> and land there.

That is correct in part. I have never heard that announcment made by
someone approaching the airport. Unless they had been listening to AWOS for
a while, they wouldn't know the wind had changed. They would hear the wind
direction and then they would decide on the appropriate runway.

The announcement would be made by someone already in the pattern. And if I
were in the pattern when someone else made that announcement, I would make
the necessary adjustments in order to use the preferred runway.

Of course if a airplane was approaching the airport, listened to AWOS, and
then heard "me" say I am using runway 27 when the wind direction favors 32,
they certainly have the opportunity to contact me for clarification. If that
were to happen, I would evaluate where they are in relation to the airport,
where I am in relation to the pattern, and then either abort my pattern for
the non-preferred runway or continue with my landing and then switch to the
preferred runway. For example, if a pilot announces they are 7 miles out and
I am on my downwind, base, or final leg, I have plenty of time to make my
landing. On the other hand, if I notice a NORAD entering the downwind
pattern for the preferred runway, I will abort my pattern and adjust to the
perferred runway.

>
> > When I fly, I fly with other pilots in the sky.
> > I will not do anything that jeperdizes either their safety nor
> > mine - at least intentionally :-).
>
> Well, I would say the same. But clearly I do some things differently
> and see some things differently. And there are other pilots who do
> and see things still differently from both of us.

And that in part is what makes flying an adventure :-). Your comment is
underscored with the number of aviation "how-to" books on the market and
they are all by different authors. No, flying is not a "one size fits all."
We have parameters that we need to stay within and guidelines to help in
that endeavor. A real example of the accuracy of your comment is encounted
when you fly with different CFIs and everyone has a slightly different
approach to landing an airplane and then along comes the DE with a DIFFERENT
idea on how landings should be approached (I know...been there, done that).

>
> I think the problem arises when some people take the attitude
> that they have the book on safety and anyone who sees things
> differently is "jeopardizing their safety or mine". Please note
> I'm not saying I see this attitude from you in what you're writing
> here, just that I see this attitude as a problem in and of itself.
>

True, so true.

Well, I hope we are coming to some conclusion here. I have enjoyed this
exchange of comments and views. Certainly with only 130 hours of flying I am
no "expert" on what should or shouldn't be done. But that is why I hang out
in this and the RAS newsgroup...to learn and to share. I think we all have
something to contribute; good, bad, or indifferent. :-)

I am lucky, I guess, where I do my flying. While I fly out of a Class-C
airport, most of the PP training takes place at several different
uncontrolled airports in our area. When I did my training I did it during
the week. Fortunately, there were MANY times when I was the only airplane in
the pattern. In fact, even now, the flying I do is done during the week.
It's almost like having your own private airport regardless where you go.

Happy and safe flying.

Harry

[Snowbird]

EDR > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Snowbird
> > wrote:
> Sydney, tell us what airport it is so we can look at an airport diagram.

Sorry, didn't see this before

SET

Don't know if thihs link will work:
http://www.aopa.org/members/airports/diagram.cfm?identifier=SET

Rwy 36, 27, both left traffic

To someone who emailed me: my assessment of the conflicts w/
rwy 27 and 36 both in active use is 1) if planes are taking off/
climbing out at the same time, and life sucks 2) crosswind for
27 and a section of downwind for 36 3) potentially someone entering
downwind for 27 on a 45, with downwind for 36.

Cheers,
Sydney

[SKYKING195]

>Below is an email from the Luscombe List.

How do you get on the Luscombe List?

thanks,
Mitch
Luscombe 8A
Cessna 195 project

[Roger Halstead]

On 15 Jan 2004 08:32:19 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote in message >...
>> (Snowbird) wrote:
>> >
>> >> And when the pilot is reminded about the right traffic, he (why is
>> >> it *always* a man?) responds "not in my book!"
>
>> I cannot accept that guys are doing this. It is well known that women
>> have a genetic disposition to mixing "left" and "right".
>
>Actually, Ron, I *have* a genetic disposition to mixing up
>"left" and "right", not because I'm a girl but because I'm
>a southpaw and I've been reversing directions given for the
>right hand all my life.
>
>But what Blanche and I were chuckling over wasn't the
>confusion between "right" and "left" but the unwillingness
>to accept a friendly, polite correction.
>
>Whether that's really a male pilot trait I leave to each person's
>experience :)

Sydney, When have you *ever* seen one of us stop to ask directions?

It is either genetic, or testosterone poisoning.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member and guilty as charged)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Cheers,
>Sydney

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

> How do you get on the Luscombe List?
>
> thanks,
> Mitch
> Luscombe 8A
> Cessna 195 project

Mitch,

You must offer at least 12 virgins to our moderator, Dan McNeil, preferably
Victoria Secret Models. If those can't be found, you can offer to help
polish his 8TF.

Otherwise, try this: Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luscombe-silvaire/

b.. To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


This is a very active list which topics varying from the technical to the
absurd. BTW, a fine assortment of airplanes you have there!

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

[Paul Sengupta]

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
.net...
> Below is an email from the Luscombe List.

> Good morning, list...
> I went flying late yesterday after work.
> I chose to stay in the pattern and work on my crash and goes.

Speaking of crash and goes, Max, the (ex) Concorde pilot, put
his prize-winning Luscombe down hard yesterday on the strip
in a crosswind while I was there. Broke the tailwheel off and
damaged the rudder and elevators. :-(

There's a couple of pictures of his very nice Luscombe on the CAA
website.
http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aircraft_register/ginfo/search.asp
and type in LUSI after the G- bit. Pictures at the bottom.

(type in DOGG and you can see a picture of my plane)

Paul

[Jeb]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message >...
> "Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > Below is an email from the Luscombe List.
>
> > Good morning, list...
> > I went flying late yesterday after work.
> > I chose to stay in the pattern and work on my crash and goes.
>
> Speaking of crash and goes, Max, the (ex) Concorde pilot, put
> his prize-winning Luscombe down hard yesterday on the strip
> in a crosswind while I was there. Broke the tailwheel off and
> damaged the rudder and elevators. :-(
>
> There's a couple of pictures of his very nice Luscombe on the CAA
> website.
> http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aircraft_register/ginfo/search.asp
> and type in LUSI after the G- bit. Pictures at the bottom.
>
> (type in DOGG and you can see a picture of my plane)
>
> Paul

Nice colours Paul, RAF training but what year?

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
news:bu9c2o$f93

> Speaking of crash and goes, Max, the (ex) Concorde pilot, put
> his prize-winning Luscombe down hard yesterday on the strip
> in a crosswind while I was there. Broke the tailwheel off and
> damaged the rudder and elevators. :-(
>

Paul,

A Luscombe Pilot Rule Of Thumb: NEVER, EVER let heavy iron types near a
Luscombe. They always break them, and they are such docile airplanes to fly
and land! Probably an over-controlling problem

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

Very nice airplane and a great data base! Thanks for sharing.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > Below is an email from the Luscombe List.
>
> > Good morning, list...
> > I went flying late yesterday after work.
> > I chose to stay in the pattern and work on my crash and goes.
>
> Speaking of crash and goes, Max, the (ex) Concorde pilot, put
> his prize-winning Luscombe down hard yesterday on the strip
> in a crosswind while I was there. Broke the tailwheel off and
> damaged the rudder and elevators. :-(
>
> There's a couple of pictures of his very nice Luscombe on the CAA
> website.
> http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aircraft_register/ginfo/search.asp
> and type in LUSI after the G- bit. Pictures at the bottom.
>
> (type in DOGG and you can see a picture of my plane)
>
> Paul
>
>

[Paul Sengupta]

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Paul,
>
> A Luscombe Pilot Rule Of Thumb: NEVER, EVER let heavy iron types near a
> Luscombe. They always break them, and they are such docile airplanes to
fly
> and land! Probably an over-controlling problem


Max has been flying the Luscombe for quite a while now. He
does air tests and all sorts of things in small planes. He's not
just a "heavy iron" type. There was a 90 degree crosswind at
the time. I didn't see it happen but helped recover the aircraft
to the hangar. I think it was just one of those things.

And yes, it's a beautiful plane. It's won best Luscombe at one
show, best foreign made aircraft at another, maybe some others.
It's kept in the hangar and never goes out in the rain!

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jeb" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
>...
> > (type in DOGG and you can see a picture of my plane)

> Nice colours Paul, RAF training but what year?

Ah, there's a story behind this. It was painted in these colours
in 1997. It's unique. As you know (explanation for others
reading this) the RAF found the best colour for conspicuity was
black. Thus they decided to repaint their training fleet in black.

They experimented first of all on their old Bulldogs. Three (as
far as I know) were painted in a black colour with yellow over
the top (as seen on http://www.warbirdalley.com/bulldog.htm).
Two of these are in the UK, one in the US. They decided not
to repaint the rest of the Bulldog fleet as they'd made the decision
to retire them within a few years.

However...back to mine. Mine was used as the airshow aircraft
and was thus given a colour scheme incorporating the "new" RAF
training colours, black with yellow markings. It was designed by
Paul Margetts, the RAF display pilot as a sunburst aerobatic scheme,
representative of that seen (in different colours) on various aerobatic
aircraft.

I bought my plane off the RAF in 2001. I took that photograph at
RAF Shawbury on the day I picked it up.

More photos of the US black and yellow one, as well as photos of
the "normal" RAF red and white colour:
http://www.scottishaviation.com/photos/

Some more pictures of mine here:
http://www.geocities.com/ukdefense/bulldog-uk-1.jpg (not me flying)
http://mysite.freeserve.com/airbase/ProductionLists/Bulldog/gdogg.jpg
http://mysite.freeserve.com/airbase/ProductionLists/Bulldog/gdogg2.jpg

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

It's just the CAA database. The photograph bit relies on people
sending in photos of their planes. I sent them a floppy disk with
some photos on. They chose the one they wanted to use.

They also sent me the floppy disk back!

Paul

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> great data base!