Useless radio transmissions

[Bela P. Havasreti]

CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students
this stuff?!!! 8^)

On 122.75:
Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet over some
non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the broadcaster does
so in broken english. Even more annoying when the broadcaster does
so every 5 minutes!

On CTAF:
Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking spot to "the active
runway" at an airport that's the size of an ex-WW2 air base.
Who cares?

On CTAF:
Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
other
end can't be seen from the departure end.

I'll think of some more later.... <grins>

Bela P. Havasreti

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
> CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students
>>
> On CTAF:
> Announcing that you're "Clear of the active".

How about the fact that uncontrolled fields don't have an "active"?

A pilot can choose any runway he or she feels is best at an uncontrolled
field. I personally don't see a big problem with a quick "7-7-Lima is
clear of two-seven", as you really can't be sure if a waiting aircraft
can see you, especially if this is you're first trip into a destination.

I'm with ya' on the other stuff.

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-08-25, Bela P Havasreti > wrote:
> On CTAF:
> Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
> who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear.

You might, but you'd be wrong at some airports, like the one I fly out
of. The only way you can see landing traffic clear the runway is if
they make the last turnoff and you catch sight of the tip of their
tail.

The narrow taxiways and hills also make it useful for people to self-
announce movement on the field. If you're going to the hangars from
the fuel you don't want someone taking the first turnoff and coming
nose-to-nose with you on the taxiway.

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> How about the fact that uncontrolled fields don't have an "active"?
>

Of course they do. "Active Runway" means any runway or runways currently
being used for takeoff or landing.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Of course they do. "Active Runway" means any runway or runways currently
> being used for takeoff or landing.

And if more than one are in use, how does anyone know which one is
pertinent?

Who declares the "active" at an uncontrolled field?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
>
> And if more than one are in use, how does anyone know which one is
> pertinent?
>

I'd consider them all pertinent, especially since they probably intersect.


>
> Who declares the "active" at an uncontrolled field?
>

Whoever chooses the runway.

[Doug[_1_]]

Dont use "active" at all. Here is why. A pilot approaches the pattern.
He turns his radio on. If all he hears is the other pilots are using
the "active", he doesn't know which runway is in use. And he doesn't
have to ask, if the pilots say the runway number instead of "active".

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:01:44 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> Of course they do. "Active Runway" means any runway or runways currently
>> being used for takeoff or landing.
>
>And if more than one are in use, how does anyone know which one is
>pertinent?
>
>Who declares the "active" at an uncontrolled field?
>
>

This happens at an airport near me all the time (just happens to
be an ex-WW2 air base). When the wind is blowing out of the
NW, those who park their airplanes on the east side of the
airport typically use runway 34. Those who park on the SW
side of the airport use runway 29 (I've seen both runways being
used all day long).

Bela P. Havasreti

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And if more than one are in use, how does anyone know which one is
>> pertinent?
>>
>
> I'd consider them all pertinent, especially since they probably intersect.
>
>
>> Who declares the "active" at an uncontrolled field?
>>
>
> Whoever chooses the runway.
>
>


Fair enough. But how is the term "active" useful to the other pilots
using the uncontrolled airport, vs. the actual runway identifier?

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...

> Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet over some
> non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the broadcaster does
> so in broken english. Even more annoying when the broadcaster does
> so every 5 minutes!

Even more annoying when the broadcaster neglects to mention what airport.


"Ummmm...... Cessna 1...2...3....4....5 is um......... Turning left
um............ Downwind...............
um.......................... For the ummmm...........

active runway........



um........

Cessna um..... 1.....2......3......4......5

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Doug wrote:
> Dont use "active" at all. Here is why. A pilot approaches the pattern.
> He turns his radio on. If all he hears is the other pilots are using
> the "active", he doesn't know which runway is in use. And he doesn't
> have to ask, if the pilots say the runway number instead of "active".
>

Precisely my point.

Even controllers usually don't use "taxi to the active", we're told
"taxi to runway 2"

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet over some
>> non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the broadcaster does
>> so in broken english. Even more annoying when the broadcaster does
>> so every 5 minutes!
>
> Even more annoying when the broadcaster neglects to mention what airport.
>
>
> "Ummmm...... Cessna 1...2...3....4....5 is um......... Turning left
> um............ Downwind...............
> um.......................... For the ummmm...........
>
> active runway.......
>
>
> um........
>
> Cessna um..... 1.....2......3......4......5
>
>

On 122.8 !!! =8^0

[Clay]

Doug makes and excellent point. The rest of you have brought up a
subject which get me too.
I would rather a pilot would err on the side of caution than to not say
anything and cause and serious upleasant situation.
Perhaps more pilots should attend some wings programs and learn the
proper techniques.
Many pilots do not use proper terminology on the radio. Years ago, I
was one of the worst on the radio. With study and proper training, I
was able to overcome my short falls.
In order, the three essentials to flying are Aviate .Navigate
Communicate.
I teach my students to think before they speak.
Address with whom you desire communication.
Announce who you are.
Where you are.
What you want.
When you are at an uncontrolled airport, Announce the name of the
airport at the beginning and also at the end of your transmission.
These are the traditional and expected patter techniques.
For more information on the subject, read Section 2 Radio
Communications Phraseology and Techniques in the Aeronautical
Information Manual.

[Javier[_1_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And if more than one are in use, how does anyone know which one is
>> pertinent?
>>
>
> I'd consider them all pertinent, especially since they probably intersect.

Right, so for the purpose of this thread, "clear the active" isn't very
descriptive, while "clear two-seven" (or whatever) is.

-jav

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
>
> This happens at an airport near me all the time (just happens to
> be an ex-WW2 air base). When the wind is blowing out of the
> NW, those who park their airplanes on the east side of the
> airport typically use runway 34. Those who park on the SW
> side of the airport use runway 29 (I've seen both runways being
> used all day long).

Same with my home base.

9-27 is the long one, 18-36 is the other . 36 starts right next to the
gas pumps and 27 is at the other end of the parking area. Most folks
will use 9-27, even with a decent crosswind, for departure but not
landing, while others will land directly into the wind, or depart
directly from the FBO area. 18 requires back taxiing, so it's rarely
used for departure, except by green students. There's no instrument
approach or visual aids on 18-36, further adding to it's use with
crosswinds.

"Active" can narrow it down to 2 or 3 of the 4! <G>

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

Or the jet jockey jargon....

SlowPoke FBO SuperFast Jet N66666
SlowPoke FBO this is SuperFast Jet N66666
SlowPoke FBO this is SuperFast Jet N66666 how do you read?
SlowPoke FBO this is SuperFast Jet N66666, co you copy SuperFast Jet N66666?

Go ahead SuperFast Jet N66666

Hey there SlowPoke FBO, howyadoin?, this is SuperFast Jet N66666, we're
about 50 miles out and will be there in about 10 minutes, we just wanted to
let you know that we would be staying with ya a couple of days.

(who freaking cares!)

Roger SuperFast Jet N66666 we'll keep the light on.

then a few minutes later it starts all over again with at 20 miles out or 10
miles out with Any traffic please watch out, or requests for phone calls, do
you have a crew car, ect....

Hello? you're gonna land in 3 freaking minutes! Please hold your questions
at least as long as you can hold your bladder! You could have made a phone
call before you took off!

Our local CTAF is 122.7 and there is another airport over 100 miles away
also using 122.7 but has a lot of corporate jet traffic. The jet guys at
that airport are pitiful. They start calling the FBO from ridiculous
distances and altitudes with the dumbest comments and requests. Many
absolutely do not matter. Is so and so working the desk? Great, I really
like her.... What's for dinner? We won't need any fuel, we'll catch it
tomorrow.

It all leaves a very bad impression upon a student that's trying to get
comfortable with what he IS supposed to say.

Jim

[[email protected]]

> On CTAF:
> Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
> who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
> exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
> other end can't be seen from the departure end.

Why would anyone say "clear of the active"?
Is it a secret which runway you used?
Do you want to withhold information from arriving pilots?

Say clearly and boldy:
"Podunk Traffic, Skylane 6 Delta Mike is clear of two eight, Podunk".

"Area traffic, please advise" just slays me!
Do you think a pilot needs to be requested to talk?
How is "area traffic" different from "traffic"?>????#$%

Just give YOUR information. If another pilot thinks there may
be a conflict, that other pilot will give THEIR information.
I have a power-point presentation that I give at FAA Wings
seminars in an attempt to clear this "lazy mouth and lazy
brain" crap off the air.

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

wrote:

>>On CTAF:
>>Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
>>who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
>>exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
>>other end can't be seen from the departure end.
>>
>>
>
>Why would anyone say "clear of the active"?
>Is it a secret which runway you used?
>Do you want to withhold information from arriving pilots?
>
>Say clearly and boldy:
>"Podunk Traffic, Skylane 6 Delta Mike is clear of two eight, Podunk".
>
>"Area traffic, please advise" just slays me!
>Do you think a pilot needs to be requested to talk?
>How is "area traffic" different from "traffic"?>????#$%
>
>Just give YOUR information. If another pilot thinks there may
>be a conflict, that other pilot will give THEIR information.
>I have a power-point presentation that I give at FAA Wings
>seminars in an attempt to clear this "lazy mouth and lazy
>brain" crap off the air.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
>
>
Would you care to share the presentation. I would like to review it.
Many of the comments I have seen I do not like either and I have heard them.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Fair enough. But how is the term "active" useful to the other pilots
> using the uncontrolled airport, vs. the actual runway identifier?
>

It's not, and I didn't say it was.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Javier" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right, so for the purpose of this thread, "clear the active" isn't very
> descriptive, while "clear two-seven" (or whatever) is.
>

Right.

[soxinbox[_1_]]

I use taxing to active all the time. I can't see the wind sock from where my
hangar is, so I have no idea what runway I am going to use.
This serves several purposes, which I guess is why CFIs teach students to do
this.
1. As someone already mentioned, it avoids two planes getting stuck like
goats on a mountain trail while taxiing between hangers.
2. It lets approaching aircraft know there is ground activity, so that the
approaching aircraft and ground/departing aircraft can avoid using the
runway at the same time. If I am approaching a field and I have heard ground
traffic, I am going to be sure to identify their location before turning
final.

It would be better to say clear of 28 instead of clear of active. I prefer
someone saying "clear of active" rather than "clear of ... uh...what was
that... clear of 28."
At a controlled airport, saying clear of active lets the controller know he
can now give a takeoff clearance to any planes waiting for departure. I
guess this probably comes into play when visibility is low and the tower
can't see the planes leaving the runway. I suppose this may not be necessary
at some small uncontrolled fields, but it is probably a bad idea to alter
your procedure based on field size and field visibility. If we took your
suggestions, and did not announce clear of active at small fields, than you
would get a bunch of pilots trained on small fields not announcing clear of
active when they flew into large controlled fields when it is necessary.
This logic is the same reason I do my GUMPS check even when flying fixed
gear aircraft.

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students
> this stuff?!!! 8^)
>
> On 122.75:
> Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet over some
> non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the broadcaster does
> so in broken english. Even more annoying when the broadcaster does
> so every 5 minutes!
>
> On CTAF:
> Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking spot to "the active
> runway" at an airport that's the size of an ex-WW2 air base.
> Who cares?
>
> On CTAF:
> Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
> who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
> exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
> other
> end can't be seen from the departure end.
>
> I'll think of some more later.... <grins>
>
> Bela P. Havasreti

[Bob Fry]

With a repost to r.a.student.

>>>>> "BPH" == Bela P Havasreti > writes:

BPH> CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students this
BPH> stuff?!!! 8^)

BPH> On 122.75: Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet
BPH> over some non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the
BPH> broadcaster does so in broken english. Even more annoying
BPH> when the broadcaster does so every 5 minutes!

BPH> On CTAF: Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking
BPH> spot to "the active runway" at an airport that's the size of
BPH> an ex-WW2 air base. Who cares?

BPH> On CTAF: Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You
BPH> might think anyone who is waiting to take off can *see* when
BPH> you're clear. The only exception I can think of is a
BPH> (severely) crowned runway where the other end can't be seen
BPH> from the departure end.

BPH> I'll think of some more later.... <grins>

BPH> Bela P. Havasreti

[Newps]

soxinbox wrote:
> I use taxing to active all the time. I can't see the wind sock from where my
> hangar is, so I have no idea what runway I am going to use.



Never looked at a flag on the way in? Which way are the trees blowing?
Who needs a wind sock?






If we took your
> suggestions, and did not announce clear of active at small fields, than you
> would get a bunch of pilots trained on small fields not announcing clear of
> active when they flew into large controlled fields when it is necessary.

Do not ever report clear of the active at a controlled field unless
requested by the tower.



> This logic is the same reason I do my GUMPS check even when flying fixed
> gear aircraft.

That's not logic at all.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

And also please stop saying "active runway". Is there such as thing as
"inactive runway"? It might be more useful to say "clear of runway XX",
that way someone listening might know which runway is being used.

However, "clear of XX" is not entirely useless. At some airports you
cannot see the other end of the runway. If you are departing behind a
landing traffic, it would be helpful to know when the other airplane
has left the runway so that you can start the takeoff roll.



Bob Fry wrote:
> With a repost to r.a.student.
>
> >>>>> "BPH" == Bela P Havasreti > writes:
>
> BPH> CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students this
> BPH> stuff?!!! 8^)
>
> BPH> On 122.75: Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet
> BPH> over some non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the
> BPH> broadcaster does so in broken english. Even more annoying
> BPH> when the broadcaster does so every 5 minutes!
>
> BPH> On CTAF: Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking
> BPH> spot to "the active runway" at an airport that's the size of
> BPH> an ex-WW2 air base. Who cares?
>
> BPH> On CTAF: Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You
> BPH> might think anyone who is waiting to take off can *see* when
> BPH> you're clear. The only exception I can think of is a
> BPH> (severely) crowned runway where the other end can't be seen
> BPH> from the departure end.
>
> BPH> I'll think of some more later.... <grins>
>
> BPH> Bela P. Havasreti

[A Lieberma]

Bob Fry > wrote in
:

I'd have to respectfully disagree with your assessment on some of the
calls.

> BPH> On CTAF: Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking
> BPH> spot to "the active runway" at an airport that's the size of
> BPH> an ex-WW2 air base. Who cares?

When I am ready to taxi, I say, Madison, 1943L ready to taxi, request
advisories, Madison. This call is two fold. If somebody in the MBO is
monitoring, they can give me a heads up that there is reported and when
winds are calm, tell me what runway was last used. Helps me know my
radio is working AND I work with the pattern. Plane could have called in
before I flipped my avionics switch. Soooo. I do care.....

> BPH> On CTAF: Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You
> BPH> might think anyone who is waiting to take off can *see* when
> BPH> you're clear. The only exception I can think of is a
> BPH> (severely) crowned runway where the other end can't be seen
> BPH> from the departure end.

Low wing planes are very hard to see on extra long runways, especially
dark ones. So, if I am at the end of 17 and a plane lands, I fully
appreciate when they report they are cleared the active. I then don't
have to wait until I get a visual on them taxiing halfway up a 1 mile
taxiway for me to take off. And as you stated, many runways I land on
are rather hilly, and seeing a plane in the valley of a runway or the
other end can be a rather difficult challenge.

As far as cleared the active, if you are paying attention when you
approach the airport, you know the active runway.

You must not deal with uncontrolled airports that potentially have two
active runways, such as intersecting runways, so yes, you can have an
inactive runway. After landing, I try to say, Natchez, 43L, cleared the
active 25, Natchez (or whatever runway it may be) so folks around me can
know what runway I am indeed clearing.

A few extra words for a bunch of safety sure is worth it to me.

Allen

[Peter R.]

A Lieberma > wrote:

> You must not deal with uncontrolled airports that potentially have two
> active runways, such as intersecting runways, so yes, you can have an
> inactive runway.

You had me agreeing with you right up to this point. Both runways could
very well be handling arriving and departing traffic, hence the concept
that there is no one, true active runway at an uncontrolled airport.

A pilot could very well choose to land or depart on the perpendicular
runway to other traffic in the pattern and not be violating anything except
the opinions of those who incorrectly believe there is only one active
runway at an uncontrolled airport.

Stick to "Podunk traffic, Cessna 123 clear of runway X," and you would be
omitting the erroneous words such as "active" that have, at best, an
ambiguous meaning at an uncontrolled airport.

Oh, and where did the rest of your name go in your newsreader moniker? :)

--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> On CTAF:
> Announcing that you're "Clear of the active".

At our airport (which has only partial taxiways, and therefore often
requires back-taxiing on other runways after landing) I always announce
"Clear of all runways, Iowa City".

That pretty much tells the tale to all concerned.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:09:42 GMT, "soxinbox" > wrote:

>I use taxing to active all the time. I can't see the wind sock from where my
>hangar is, so I have no idea what runway I am going to use.
>This serves several purposes, which I guess is why CFIs teach students to do
>this.

Uggh...
..
Why do you need to see a windsock to determine which way the wind
is blowing?

>1. As someone already mentioned, it avoids two planes getting stuck like
>goats on a mountain trail while taxiing between hangers.

I'll allow this argument at (what?) maybe 5% of the airports most
folks fly out of....

>2. It lets approaching aircraft know there is ground activity, so that the
>approaching aircraft and ground/departing aircraft can avoid using the
>runway at the same time. If I am approaching a field and I have heard ground
>traffic, I am going to be sure to identify their location before turning
>final.

Why would approaching aircraft give a rats _ss about what ground
activity is going on at the airport (especially if it's a big _ss
ex-WW2 air base airport?).

What this behavior is closely linked to (i.e., relying on the radio to

do your "hard work" for you) is the primary "pet peeve" of those
of use who are posting here / complaining about this stuff.

What you are talking about, is having folks blab crap on the CTAF
frequency about their ground-antics that (may) make it less work
for you to approach the airport and land there. I'll freely admit
that if the CTAF is "dead" (not much communication going on)
there ain't a great deal of harm in doing so. However, if you
live on the same planet we do (and there's 6+ fields within 50
square nautical miles that use the same CTAF frequency),
it's a waste of broadcast bandwidth.

>It would be better to say clear of 28 instead of clear of active. I prefer
>someone saying "clear of active" rather than "clear of ... uh...what was
>that... clear of 28."

I'd prefer that aircraft that just landed would expedite their exit
from the active runway and (quietly) taxi back to their parking spot.

>At a controlled airport, saying clear of active lets the controller know he
>can now give a takeoff clearance to any planes waiting for departure.

????? The controller is *NOT* waiting for you to say that so he can
give clearance to waiting aircraft.... To put in it brief terms,
it's not your "responsibility" to let the controller know the runway
is "available" for the next user....

>I guess this probably comes into play when visibility is low and the tower
>can't see the planes leaving the runway. I suppose this may not be necessary
>at some small uncontrolled fields, but it is probably a bad idea to alter
>your procedure based on field size and field visibility.

Hey, if you can't adapt your procedure (or communication protocol)
for the environment you're flying into, I don't know what to say....

>If we took your suggestions, and did not announce clear of active at small fields, than you
>would get a bunch of pilots trained on small fields not announcing clear of
>active when they flew into large controlled fields when it is necessary.

When is it necessary to announce at "large controlled fields" that
you're "clear of the active"? Please site the FAR or AIM that compels
you to do so.

>This logic is the same reason I do my GUMPS check even when flying fixed
>gear aircraft.

????????? and that has precisely what to do with this topic???

Bela P. Havasreti

>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>> CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students
>> this stuff?!!! 8^)
>>
>> On 122.75:
>> Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet over some
>> non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the broadcaster does
>> so in broken english. Even more annoying when the broadcaster does
>> so every 5 minutes!
>>
>> On CTAF:
>> Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking spot to "the active
>> runway" at an airport that's the size of an ex-WW2 air base.
>> Who cares?
>>
>> On CTAF:
>> Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
>> who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
>> exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
>> other
>> end can't be seen from the departure end.
>>
>> I'll think of some more later.... <grins>
>>
>> Bela P. Havasreti
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Bela,

> I'll think of some more later.... <grins>
>

Oh, I'll help:

"With you..."
"Any traffic please adivse"
"Hey John is that you?" et cetera ad absurdum and nauseum
"Tally Ho" and "No Joy"


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[soxinbox[_1_]]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:09:42 GMT, "soxinbox" > wrote:
>
>>I use taxing to active all the time. I can't see the wind sock from where
>>my
>>hangar is, so I have no idea what runway I am going to use.
>>This serves several purposes, which I guess is why CFIs teach students to
>>do
>>this.
>
> Uggh...
> .
> Why do you need to see a windsock to determine which way the wind
> is blowing?
>

Looking at trees is good for determining the current wind. Where I fly there
are often days where the wind is calm with occasional stong gusts that tend
to come from the same direction. If I look at the sock when the wind is
calm, I can see the direction of the last gust. Trees can't do this unless
you sit there patiently and wait for the next gust.

Also when your hanger is in the middle of multiple rows of hangers, you
can't see the trees and the wind is distorted by the hangers. There are a
lot of small airports with multiple rows of hangers. You could look at the
trees or sock on the way into the airport, but sometimes I like to take care
of a few things in the hanger, and may be in the hanger for several hours
before departing. If you always operate from small fields, or operate in an
area were the winds are consistant I can see how you might not have
considered this. I often see wind shifts on a 15 minute basis.

>>1. As someone already mentioned, it avoids two planes getting stuck like
>>goats on a mountain trail while taxiing between hangers.
>
> I'll allow this argument at (what?) maybe 5% of the airports most
> folks fly out of....
>

Any airport with mutiple parallel rows of T-hangers has this problem. It is
probably higher than 5%, but I couldn't back that up with any statistics.

>>2. It lets approaching aircraft know there is ground activity, so that the
>>approaching aircraft and ground/departing aircraft can avoid using the
>>runway at the same time. If I am approaching a field and I have heard
>>ground
>>traffic, I am going to be sure to identify their location before turning
>>final.
>
> Why would approaching aircraft give a rats _ss about what ground
> activity is going on at the airport (especially if it's a big _ss
> ex-WW2 air base airport?).
>
> What this behavior is closely linked to (i.e., relying on the radio to
>
> do your "hard work" for you) is the primary "pet peeve" of those
> of use who are posting here / complaining about this stuff.
>

If all pilots were perfect, than they would all be able to see every plane
in the area. In the real world, it is nice to have the added use of radios
to augment our imperfect senses. An approaching plane doesn't care about
ground traffic unless the ground traffic is likely to become air traffic
prior to his becomeing ground traffic. If you don't believe in using radios
to "do your hardwork" of identifying potential conflicts, than why bother
with possition reports at all?

> What you are talking about, is having folks blab crap on the CTAF
> frequency about their ground-antics that (may) make it less work
> for you to approach the airport and land there. I'll freely admit
> that if the CTAF is "dead" (not much communication going on)
> there ain't a great deal of harm in doing so. However, if you
> live on the same planet we do (and there's 6+ fields within 50
> square nautical miles that use the same CTAF frequency),
> it's a waste of broadcast bandwidth.
>
>>It would be better to say clear of 28 instead of clear of active. I prefer
>>someone saying "clear of active" rather than "clear of ... uh...what was
>>that... clear of 28."
>
> I'd prefer that aircraft that just landed would expedite their exit
> from the active runway and (quietly) taxi back to their parking spot.
>
>>At a controlled airport, saying clear of active lets the controller know
>>he
>>can now give a takeoff clearance to any planes waiting for departure.
>
> ????? The controller is *NOT* waiting for you to say that so he can
> give clearance to waiting aircraft.... To put in it brief terms,
> it's not your "responsibility" to let the controller know the runway
> is "available" for the next user....
>

I might be wrong on this one. When the airport is fogged in and the
controller can't see the runway, how does the controller know that the plan
is off the runway? I thought it was done by the landing plane anouncing he
was clear of the runway, but as I said, I might be wrong. If I am wrong,
than I concede that point.

I still think it is useful on airports with hump runways, and when taking
off into the sun.

>>I guess this probably comes into play when visibility is low and the tower
>>can't see the planes leaving the runway. I suppose this may not be
>>necessary
>>at some small uncontrolled fields, but it is probably a bad idea to alter
>>your procedure based on field size and field visibility.
>
> Hey, if you can't adapt your procedure (or communication protocol)
> for the environment you're flying into, I don't know what to say....
>
>>If we took your suggestions, and did not announce clear of active at
>>small fields, than you
>>would get a bunch of pilots trained on small fields not announcing clear
>>of
>>active when they flew into large controlled fields when it is necessary.
>
> When is it necessary to announce at "large controlled fields" that
> you're "clear of the active"? Please site the FAR or AIM that compels
> you to do so.
>
>>This logic is the same reason I do my GUMPS check even when flying fixed
>>gear aircraft.
>
> ????????? and that has precisely what to do with this topic???
>

It is an argument for adopting a standard set of proceedures to follow. Do
your gumps check whether or not you have retractable gear, start your timer
turning inbound on a hold evan if the legs are dme based instead of timed,
and (here's the tie in ) use the same comunication proceedures weather it is
nessesery or not at that particular airport.

> Bela P. Havasreti
>
>>
>>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>>> CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students
>>> this stuff?!!! 8^)
>>>
>>> On 122.75:
>>> Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet over some
>>> non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the broadcaster does
>>> so in broken english. Even more annoying when the broadcaster does
>>> so every 5 minutes!
>>>
>>> On CTAF:
>>> Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking spot to "the active
>>> runway" at an airport that's the size of an ex-WW2 air base.
>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>> On CTAF:
>>> Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
>>> who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
>>> exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
>>> other
>>> end can't be seen from the departure end.
>>>
>>> I'll think of some more later.... <grins>
>>>
>>> Bela P. Havasreti
>>
>

[A Lieberma]

"Peter R." > wrote in
:

> A Lieberma > wrote:
>
>> You must not deal with uncontrolled airports that potentially have
>> two active runways, such as intersecting runways, so yes, you can
>> have an inactive runway.
>
> You had me agreeing with you right up to this point. Both runways
> could very well be handling arriving and departing traffic, hence the
> concept that there is no one, true active runway at an uncontrolled
> airport.

Heck Peter,

Just reading my own paragraph made me disagree with myself :-)

Needless to say, you are right, at an uncontrolled airport, both runways
should be treated as active since somebody just may be boning up on
their crosswind techniques.

> Oh, and where did the rest of your name go in your newsreader moniker?
> :)

on the inactive runway :-)

Allen

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:50:54 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
> wrote:
> However, if you live on the same planet we do
> (and there's 6+ fields within 50 square nautical
> miles that use the same CTAF frequency), it's a
> waste of broadcast bandwidth.

Sounds like you might be complaining about the symptoms, not the
actual problem (i.e. multiple airports on the same frequency)... I
always wondered why the FAA does this... There seems to be enough
frequencies that they could spread them out a bit...

[Jose[_1_]]

> Sounds like you might be complaining about the symptoms, not the
> actual problem (i.e. multiple airports on the same frequency)... I
> always wondered why the FAA does this... There seems to be enough
> frequencies that they could spread them out a bit...

I'm not sure which way I lean on this. Flying low through an area with
several nontowered airports, it is useful to self-announce to all of
them as I go by, and since they can be fairly close together, I may be
relevant traffic for two or three at a time. A common frequency is
useful for this. It does have its drawbacks though, as you can see.

How far out do you (as a pilot in the pattern of a nontowered airport)
want to hear from a low transiting pilot?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[TxSrv]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> Sounds like you might be complaining about the symptoms, not the
> actual problem (i.e. multiple airports on the same frequency)... I
> always wondered why the FAA does this... There seems to be enough
> frequencies that they could spread them out a bit...

I really agree, but it's not the FAA who nominally does the
"spreading." Unicom base stations apply to the FCC for the freq
and most applied decades ago. FAA would have to adopt a rule
(FAR), which states they now at its whim can order unicom base
stations to apply for a new freq other than their present 122.8.
Some fraction of airport operators then have the legal right
(the Administrative Procedures Act, plus an Executive Order which
gives the Office of Management and Budget the authority to weigh
in as to the need for new rules on affected citizens, like unicom
operators) to comment and oppose, stating (even if blowing smoke
in many cases) that it will cost them too much, and then FAA must
under law justify the cost-benefit to finally adopt the new rule.

This legal reality is a door which can swing both ways. It tends
also to prevent FAA from from just thinking about imposing rules
on us pilots or owners in other seeming nuisance areas which will
cost us too much re a cost-benefit analysis.

Fred F.

[Roy Smith]

TxSrv > wrote:
> Some fraction of airport operators then have the legal right
> [...] to comment and oppose, stating (even if blowing smoke
> in many cases) that it will cost them too much

How could it cost *any* money to switch frequencies. Are people really
still using radios where changing the freq requires anything more than
turning a knob?

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:27:02 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> How far out do you (as a pilot in the pattern of a nontowered airport)
> want to hear from a low transiting pilot?

The airport that I hear from the most while in the pattern at my home
airport is about 13 nm away... They seem to have quite a bit more
activity than our airport and quite often, it's difficult to get a
word in edgewise when they have a few students or whatever in the
pattern... There are airports closer than this one and they have
different frequencies, so I have to assume that *someone* thought that
this airport was far enough away that the transmissions would not
intefere with each other... They were wrong, of course...

If they're not within 5 nm of the airport or heading into the airport,
I probably don't need to hear from them... Ideally, when I'm flying, I
like to stay 5 nm away from any airport (or more depending upon the
actual airspace restrictions)... I mapped this out for the Houston
area once and that left with relatively few places to fly so I
abandoned this notion rather quickly...

[TxSrv]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> How could it cost *any* money to switch frequencies. Are people really
> still using radios where changing the freq requires anything more than
> turning a knob?

It's not our radios, but whatever the unicom base station
operator has. Perhaps it's just a new crystal, but an old
transceiver by a company out of business. Who ya' gonna call?

Fred F.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
TxSrv > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
> >
> > How could it cost *any* money to switch frequencies. Are people really
> > still using radios where changing the freq requires anything more than
> > turning a knob?
>
> It's not our radios, but whatever the unicom base station
> operator has. Perhaps it's just a new crystal, but an old
> transceiver by a company out of business. Who ya' gonna call?
>
> Fred F.

Are there really people running crystal controlled base stations? I
thought crystal sets went out of style 30 years ago.

[TxSrv]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> Are there really people running crystal controlled base stations? I
> thought crystal sets went out of style 30 years ago.

Most of my aircraft's electronics went out of style 30 yrs ago,
but still work very well. If a single-frequency base station
still works, how would a small FBO making little or no money
react to gov't ordering they make it put another frequency? Same
as we would, if FAA said an item in our avionics stack is no
longer acceptable.

Fred F.

[Jeff[_1_]]

> How is "area traffic" different from "traffic"?>????#$%

We have a local area that I fly into that makes sense to use "area" traffic.
There are 3 airfields within a 3 mile line East to West. The middle one is
a public use grass strip (Eagleville) and the two others (one is named T-Top
and each are ~1 mile away from the center one) are private, but often used
strips.

They all show 122.8 as their CTAF (if it's published). A wide pattern at
any of the fields will intersect with the other, so most people use the
public use name + area "Eagleville area traffic, C12345 entering left
downwind runway 19, T-Top"

[Dave[_5_]]

> And if more than one are in use, how does anyone know which one is
> pertinent?
>
> Who declares the "active" at an uncontrolled field?

Good question. Just today I was about to take runway 19 at an
uncontrolled field when
another aircraft announced he was turning final for 1. The wind, such
as it was, was a slight breeze from the South - the windsock was limp.
So it was up to the pilot's diecretion as to which to use. I held short
while the other aircraft landed (and declared "clear of the active")
before taking the runway. No sooner had I done so than along comes
somebody else on an IFR approach for 1.

This brings up an interesting question: Who has the right of way? Me,
because I am already on the runway, ready to take off - or the traffic
on approach, because it was "landing" (though had not so stated - only
an "IFR Approach" called out). As it
turned out, I held at the departure end, and the traffic declared a
missed approach (perhaps having intended to do so all along?), and
passed overhead.

Bottom line: Its a crapshoot. Anybody remember the old Tetrahedrons
that were used to indicate the active runway in the old days? I assume
that they went away because they
1. required someone to decide which way to point them, then 2. go out
and turn the Tetrahedron. That, of course, requires an employee on duty
- an endangered species in this penny-pinching age.

[Newps]

Dave wrote:


>
> This brings up an interesting question: Who has the right of way? Me,
> because I am already on the runway, ready to take off - or the traffic
> on approach, because it was "landing" (though had not so stated - only
> an "IFR Approach" called out). As it
> turned out, I held at the departure end, and the traffic declared a
> missed approach (perhaps having intended to do so all along?), and
> passed overhead.

How close was he? If he's a few miles out you have no conflict,
takeoff and turn.

[[email protected]]

Ross Richardson > wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: us-ascii, 42 lines --]

Ross, Please send me your email address and I will share it
with you. I am sure I can improve it after your review.

Jer/


> wrote:

> >>On CTAF:
> >>Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
> >>who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
> >>exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
> >>other end can't be seen from the departure end.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Why would anyone say "clear of the active"?
> >Is it a secret which runway you used?
> >Do you want to withhold information from arriving pilots?
> >
> >Say clearly and boldy:
> >"Podunk Traffic, Skylane 6 Delta Mike is clear of two eight, Podunk".
> >
> >"Area traffic, please advise" just slays me!
> >Do you think a pilot needs to be requested to talk?
> >How is "area traffic" different from "traffic"?>????#$%
> >
> >Just give YOUR information. If another pilot thinks there may
> >be a conflict, that other pilot will give THEIR information.
> >I have a power-point presentation that I give at FAA Wings
> >seminars in an attempt to clear this "lazy mouth and lazy
> >brain" crap off the air.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
> >
> >
> Would you care to share the presentation. I would like to review it.
> Many of the comments I have seen I do not like either and I have heard them.



Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:20:16 -0500, Jim Burns wrote:

> but has a lot of corporate jet traffic

This is not limited to jet drivers.

- Andrew

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

wrote:

>Ross Richardson > wrote:
>
>
>>[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: us-ascii, 42 lines --]
>>
>>
>
>Ross, Please send me your email address and I will share it
>with you. I am sure I can improve it after your review.
>
>Jer/
>
>
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>>On CTAF:
>>>>Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
>>>>who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
>>>>exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
>>>>other end can't be seen from the departure end.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why would anyone say "clear of the active"?
>>>Is it a secret which runway you used?
>>>Do you want to withhold information from arriving pilots?
>>>
>>>Say clearly and boldy:
>>>"Podunk Traffic, Skylane 6 Delta Mike is clear of two eight, Podunk".
>>>
>>>"Area traffic, please advise" just slays me!
>>>Do you think a pilot needs to be requested to talk?
>>>How is "area traffic" different from "traffic"?>????#$%
>>>
>>>Just give YOUR information. If another pilot thinks there may
>>>be a conflict, that other pilot will give THEIR information.
>>>I have a power-point presentation that I give at FAA Wings
>>>seminars in an attempt to clear this "lazy mouth and lazy
>>>brain" crap off the air.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Would you care to share the presentation. I would like to review it.
>>Many of the comments I have seen I do not like either and I have heard them.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
>
>
rprichardson <at> verizon<dot>net

I almost forgot that I asked. I was scannning the list and just had a
feeling I needed to look at this entry.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Barney Rubble]

Yawn, how many times a week are we going to do this topic?

> wrote in message ...
> Ross Richardson > wrote:
>> [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: us-ascii, 42 lines --]
>
> Ross, Please send me your email address and I will share it
> with you. I am sure I can improve it after your review.
>
> Jer/
>
>
>> wrote:
>
>> >>On CTAF:
>> >>Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You might think anyone
>> >>who is waiting to take off can *see* when you're clear. The only
>> >>exception I can think of is a (severely) crowned runway where the
>> >>other end can't be seen from the departure end.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why would anyone say "clear of the active"?
>> >Is it a secret which runway you used?
>> >Do you want to withhold information from arriving pilots?
>> >
>> >Say clearly and boldy:
>> >"Podunk Traffic, Skylane 6 Delta Mike is clear of two eight, Podunk".
>> >
>> >"Area traffic, please advise" just slays me!
>> >Do you think a pilot needs to be requested to talk?
>> >How is "area traffic" different from "traffic"?>????#$%
>> >
>> >Just give YOUR information. If another pilot thinks there may
>> >be a conflict, that other pilot will give THEIR information.
>> >I have a power-point presentation that I give at FAA Wings
>> >seminars in an attempt to clear this "lazy mouth and lazy
>> >brain" crap off the air.
>> >
>> >Best regards,
>> >
>> >Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
>> >
>> >
>> Would you care to share the presentation. I would like to review it.
>> Many of the comments I have seen I do not like either and I have heard
>> them.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
> --
> Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
> CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
> C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
> CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!

[Dave[_5_]]

> How close was he? If he's a few miles out you have no conflict,
> takeoff and turn.

Just came into sight - perhaps a mile off the far end of the runway.
Too close for comfort.
Couldn't go back behind the hold short line - no room (another airplane
had taken my place).
Fortunately, the runway was long and wide.