No more "Left Downwind"?

[Jay Honeck]

We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
(who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")

To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
the word "left".

In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.

Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
naive.

What do you guys think?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

On 1 Sep 2006 18:50:58 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
>(who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
>calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
>prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
>To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
>Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
>incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
>Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
>the word "left".
>
>In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
>redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
>right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
>thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
>frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
>Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
>presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
>saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
>clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
>knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
>naive.
>
>What do you guys think?

He must be a transfer from Military Inellligence.

Don

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
>

I think he's right when he says it's redundant and wrong when he says it's
incorrect.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?

He's an idiot if he thinks omitting "left" will make any difference.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

> IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on.

I agree 100%, and would not have kept my mouth shut. Aircraft may be
low and near the airport (say, overflying) with no intent to land, yet
availing themselves of their freedom to fly in class E and G airspace,
and be listening for calls over the umpty ump airports they are flying
over. The idea that they've memorized the traffic patterns of all these
airports is ludicrous. "All available information" may even be there in
the cockpit, but it is =far= better to hear "Left downwind for 26..."
which instantly creates situational awareness, rather than "Downwind for
26..." (ohmygod, is that the one with right traffic? They said Bumee
airport, I'm over Littlefield County but they have a runway 26, maybe
that's a local name for it?...)

The extra syllable here and there is a way for people to be anal about
radio work. The real problem isn't "with you" or "left" or "looking",
but rather the windbags that take two minutes to say anything because
they haven't a clue.

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

[Doug[_1_]]

Probably doesn't like pitot tube or empenage either....:-)

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?

I think he's making a dangerous assumption that pilots will always enter
a left downwind at an uncontrolled airport.

[Mike Adams[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>

I agree completely. I've seen many instances of an aircraft entering the
pattern on the "wrong" side of the runway. One more word on the radio will
clarify the situation completely.

Mike

[Jose[_1_]]

> I think he's making a dangerous assumption that pilots will always enter a left downwind at an uncontrolled airport.

He's making an even more dangerous assumption that transiting pilots
will always know which airports have right patterns.

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

[BTIZ]

well.. I'd like to know what side of the airport the other pilot thinks he
is on.. we are at an uncontrolled field.

If he just says "entering downwind for Rwy 20", I don't know if he means
right downwind for 20R or left downwind for 20L. We have transients
approaching the airport that don't even seem to realize we have 2 parallel
runways..

We even have pilots that call, Left Downwind for 20R, so much for the no
transgression zone between the runways.. we are at an uncontrolled airport.

I hate those guys that call in.. "any traffic please advise", if they'll
listen up 5 minutes they'll get 3 radio calls of other people in the traffic
pattern"... we are at an uncontrolled field.

But then we have those guys that hear.. "xx Glider on left downwind for
20L", so they decide 20L is the active runway and call "left downwind for
20L"... I had a jet do that once.. and I asked "if he'd like an extra 1000ft
of wider pavement to land on.. maybe a right downwind for 20R might be
better"..
we are at an uncontrolled field..

"Every "local" pilot may know the traffic is left or right.."
But how many transients do not (1) check the charting (2) look it up in the
AFD or (3) pay attention to what everyone else is doing.

Heck.. we've even had pilots show up during an airshow when the airport was
NOTAM'd closed..
of course.. after they would not pay attention to "airport is closed,
airshow in progress".. the airboss would shut down the show, let them land
and they were met by very kindly FAA inspectors that were there to monitor
the airshow.

BT


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 9/1/06 9:50 PM, in article
. com, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I think pilots are the most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Roy Smith]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic.

In my opinion, that's exactly the sort of thinking I would expect from the
FAA.

[Peter R.]

Wizard of Draws > wrote:

> I think pilots are the most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet.

And your point is?

--
Peter

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 9/1/06 10:21 PM, in article
, "Peter R."
> wrote:

> Wizard of Draws > wrote:
>
>> I think pilots are the most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet.
>
> And your point is?

They very often lose sight of the forest for the trees.
Is a _single word_ truly worth the bandwidth and time that will be used to
debate whether it's proper to use it?

The FAA obviously thinks it's worth time and effort, but they have the
excuse that they are a bureaucracy, and are abysmally anal by definition.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Jay Honeck]

> >> I think pilots are the most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet.
> >
> > And your point is?
>
> They very often lose sight of the forest for the trees.
> Is a _single word_ truly worth the bandwidth and time that will be used to
> debate whether it's proper to use it?
>
> The FAA obviously thinks it's worth time and effort, but they have the
> excuse that they are a bureaucracy, and are abysmally anal by definition.

True enough, Jeff -- but the FAA controls everything we do, for better
or worse. Debating this point wasn't MY idea -- it was theirs...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> I think pilots are the most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet.
>>> And your point is?
>> They very often lose sight of the forest for the trees.
>> Is a _single word_ truly worth the bandwidth and time that will be used to
>> debate whether it's proper to use it?
>>
>> The FAA obviously thinks it's worth time and effort, but they have the
>> excuse that they are a bureaucracy, and are abysmally anal by definition.
>
> True enough, Jeff -- but the FAA controls everything we do, for better
> or worse.

I don't know..say what you want about them, I doubt they're going to
violate someone for using the word "left" in a radio transmission.

(Ok, so I had a startlingly good conversation with our PMI today, which
slightly rekindled my faith in the FAA....probably not deserved)

[Jose[_1_]]

> (Ok, so I had a startlingly good conversation with our PMI today, which slightly rekindled my faith in the FAA....probably not deserved)

Care to share?

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

[Darkwing]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I've been left downwind when a Business Jet decided to be "right" downwind
for the same runway even though the airport is left traffic. I will continue
saying left or right as it may warrant. I also do not say "traffic please
advise" I hear it ALL the time though.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> (Ok, so I had a startlingly good conversation with our PMI today,
>> which slightly rekindled my faith in the FAA....probably not deserved)
>
> Care to share?
>
> Jose
Oh, nothing piloting related...we had a SUP show up on the doorstep last
week and he's going to help us do everything we can to figure out where
it came from and what to do with it. I just wasn't expecting that kind
of support...I'm used to the FAA either blowing me off and jumping in
and taking over. I've been fairly impressed by this particular FSDO.

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 9/1/06 10:46 PM, in article
. com, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>>> I think pilots are the most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet.
>>>
>>> And your point is?
>>
>> They very often lose sight of the forest for the trees.
>> Is a _single word_ truly worth the bandwidth and time that will be used to
>> debate whether it's proper to use it?
>>
>> The FAA obviously thinks it's worth time and effort, but they have the
>> excuse that they are a bureaucracy, and are abysmally anal by definition.
>
> True enough, Jeff -- but the FAA controls everything we do, for better
> or worse. Debating this point wasn't MY idea -- it was theirs...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

FWIW Jay, my response wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. I
knew, as well as you did, that a nit like this is too tempting for _any_
pilot to remain silent. It's just that the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

I'll change my mind when I hear anyone getting busted by the FAA for making
a call like this.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Peter R.]

Wizard of Draws > wrote:

> They very often lose sight of the forest for the trees.

They? Last I knew you were an instrument rated pilot, too. What's the
reason for the disassociation?

> Is a _single word_ truly worth the bandwidth and time that will be used to
> debate whether it's proper to use it?

For the most part Usenet bandwidth is cheap and time is what we make of it.
I didn't get the impression from Jay's post that he was looking to start a
debate. Nor do I expect to read one post in disagreement with Jay's point.

Instead, it seemed to me that Jay was simply sharing his incredulity. I
found the item newsworthy and, if nothing else, now won't be caught off
guard if I hear this mentioned at an FAA safety seminar.

--
Peter

[Roy Smith]

"Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been left downwind when a Business Jet decided to be "right" downwind
> for the same runway even though the airport is left traffic.

Even more exciting is when you're on left downwind for 9 when somebody
announces they're entering a right downwind for 27 :-)

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 9/1/06 11:24 PM, in article
, "Peter R."
> wrote:

> Wizard of Draws > wrote:
>
>> They very often lose sight of the forest for the trees.
>
> They? Last I knew you were an instrument rated pilot, too. What's the
> reason for the disassociation?
>

The mere fact that I've now contributed 3 posts to this silly thread proves
my point.

>> Is a _single word_ truly worth the bandwidth and time that will be used to
>> debate whether it's proper to use it?
>
> For the most part Usenet bandwidth is cheap and time is what we make of it.
> I didn't get the impression from Jay's post that he was looking to start a
> debate. Nor do I expect to read one post in disagreement with Jay's point.
>

Jay asked us what we thought. Reason enough as any to start a debate here,
as Jay well knows, especially if it's about something trivial. The smaller
the nit, the longer the thread. Jeff's Law.

> Instead, it seemed to me that Jay was simply sharing his incredulity. I
> found the item newsworthy and, if nothing else, now won't be caught off
> guard if I hear this mentioned at an FAA safety seminar.

Give 'em both barrels.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Joe Johnson]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote:
> > I've been left downwind when a Business Jet decided to be "right"
downwind
> > for the same runway even though the airport is left traffic.
>
> Even more exciting is when you're on left downwind for 9 when somebody
> announces they're entering a right downwind for 27 :-)

Also fun is hearing someone announce they're departing 9 after you've
announced you're departing 27.

[Peter R.]

Wizard of Draws > wrote:

> Give 'em both barrels.

Need a little help finishing today's NY Times crossword puzzle: The clue
is "ill-tempered; grouchy; cross" and it is a five letter word beginning
with c. Ideas?

--
Peter

[john smith]

In article <YQ5Kg.1700$8J2.666@fed1read11>,
"BTIZ" > wrote:

> "Every "local" pilot may know the traffic is left or right.."
> But how many transients do not (1) check the charting (2) look it up in the
> AFD or (3) pay attention to what everyone else is doing.

How is right or left traffic depicted on a Sectional Chart?

[BTIZ]

left is standard.. right traffic is on the chart with annotations for the
airport along with the airport elevation, lighting, runway length and
frequency.. as in

JEAN (0L7)
2832 *L 46 122.9
RP 2R 20R

or

Sky Ranch (3L2)
2599 - 33 123.0
RP 12

BT

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <YQ5Kg.1700$8J2.666@fed1read11>,
> "BTIZ" > wrote:
>
>> "Every "local" pilot may know the traffic is left or right.."
>> But how many transients do not (1) check the charting (2) look it up in
>> the
>> AFD or (3) pay attention to what everyone else is doing.
>
> How is right or left traffic depicted on a Sectional Chart?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> How is right or left traffic depicted on a Sectional Chart?
>

RP

[150flivver]

We've had right traffic to 17 for years and years at my home field and
the sectional had RP 17 for most of those years. Last year it was
inadvertantly left off the sectional but we continued to fly right
patterns to 17. In fact, I hadn't noticed it wasn't on my current
sectional at the time until a transient pointed it out to me. We
checked it against the old sectional posted on the wall of the FBO and
sure enough, they left it off on the newer sectional. So even if a
pilot goes by the sectional, at least in this instance, he would have
been going against local convention and a radio call indicating such
would help sort out any confusion. The sectional has since been
corrected and reads RP 17 again.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"150flivver" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> We've had right traffic to 17 for years and years at my home field and
> the sectional had RP 17 for most of those years. Last year it was
> inadvertantly left off the sectional but we continued to fly right
> patterns to 17. In fact, I hadn't noticed it wasn't on my current
> sectional at the time until a transient pointed it out to me. We
> checked it against the old sectional posted on the wall of the FBO and
> sure enough, they left it off on the newer sectional. So even if a
> pilot goes by the sectional, at least in this instance, he would have
> been going against local convention and a radio call indicating such
> would help sort out any confusion. The sectional has since been
> corrected and reads RP 17 again.
>

What field?

[Robert M. Gary]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")

There is no IQ test required to be an FAA presenter.

[Robert M. Gary]

john smith wrote:
> How is right or left traffic depicted on a Sectional Chart?

This is why BFRs are required every 2 years.

-Robert

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, ........
>
> What do you guys think?

What you have to realize is that this sort of thing is not at all about air
safety or the expedited movement of aircraft. In this world of lifetime
bureaucrats and computerized management reports, this is about some
mid-level 'crat being able to generate a spreadsheet report showing that his
proposal reduced transmitted verbiage by an average of 0.042% last quarter,
0.002% above goal!!! Excellent job, guys! Keep up the good work!!!!

[cjcampbell]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>

I must have missed something, not flying for awhile. How was "Any other
traffic please advise" specifically prohibited?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?


I'm with you. In fact, I start and finish my transmission with the airport name
just because I know how *I* am with radio transmissions. I tend to float along
not paying real attention and then it's "where did he say he was?". So I'll
transmit "Rock Hill traffic, Cessna 32Q on left downwind for runway zero two,
Rock Hill." It only takes a split second more but I figure it helps, not hurts.

When it domes right down to it, the FAA isn't likely to run into anyone sitting
in his office, but we might in the traffic pattern. The people who dreamed up
your FAA man's premise have too much free time on their hands and not enough
experience actually flying in the system.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> ...
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic.
> ...
> What do you guys think?

I remember having had a somewhat related discussion with some
CAP folks concerning operations in non-controlled airfields. Now
reading your piece, I went back to the regs just to make sure I
was not imagining things. The one that talks about operating on
or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace, 14 CFR 91.126,
specifies, in its subparagraph (b) the direction of turns. Ok, it
seems clear enough, one should turn left unless indicated otherwise.

However, the subparagraph (a), as a general introduction, has
the following magic words in it: "Unless otherwise authorized
or required..." -- what does it mean exactly? Notice that
unlike other parts of this chapter which use a similar wording,
it does NOT say 'unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC',
i.e., it does not mention ATC until subparagraph (d).

My interpretation -- which might very well be mistaken, please
correct me -- is that if someone has a compelling reason to do
something different, whatever it might be, it is his or her call.
Am I completely off here? seriously?

And that's in a perfect world, where everybody knows exactly where
they are, and announce it accurately, which is, as anyone who
has operated in a reasonably busy uncontrolled airfield would know,
a bit over optimistic. And you get people who take off in one
direction and land in another, folks coming in from straight-in
many miles away on an IFR approach, etc. pretty much anything goes,
it can be a lot of fun actually.

I other words, I agree with you that every bit helps and that
announcing what you are doing is the sane thing to do (when possible),
even by adding a bit of redundency just to be sure; besides I can't
see how skipping *one* monosyllabic word is not going to reduce the
radio chatter by much.

--Sylvain

[Cubdriver]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:02:12 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

> The real problem isn't "with you" or "left" or "looking",
>but rather the windbags that take two minutes to say anything because
>they haven't a clue.

"Jeff--is that you?"

"Yeah, it's me."

"How ya doing?"

"Okay, I guess."

(Heard on a holiday weekend.)

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> What do you guys think?

I agree with the FAA. I've never added the "left" or "right" into
my radio calls *unless* I am entering the pattern in a non-standard
way. It really is redundant as according to FARs you are supposed to
be familiar with runway information at the destination airport in
advance of your flight.

[Peter R.]

cjcampbell > wrote:

> I must have missed something, not flying for awhile. How was "Any other
> traffic please advise" specifically prohibited?

Specifically prohibited might be a tad strong, but the 2007 AIM directly
singles out this phrase and recommends against its use.

--
Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:56:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>I think he's right when he says it's redundant and wrong when he says it's
>incorrect.

When I first read that, I was in agreement, but considering that a
pilot has the option to enter the pattern at his discretion from any
point, perhaps omitting the word 'left' might cause others to check
both downwind legs thus overcoming any ambiguity possibly introduced
by those pilots who don't know their right from their left.

On the other hand, if the FAA presenter was a true spokesman for
official policy, perhaps his admission, that the FAA considers the
congestion on the shared CFAF frequencies a safety concern, is
evidence that the FAA is powerless to petition the FCC for the
additional CTAF frequencies necessary to meet its federal mandate* to
insure safe skies.

*(Federal Aviation Act of 1958: "to ensure air safety." 49 U.S.C. §
44701(c): requiring Administrator to regulate "in a way that best
tends to reduce or eliminate the possibility or recurrence of
accidents in air transportation")

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On the other hand, if the FAA presenter was a true spokesman for
> official policy, perhaps his admission, that the FAA considers the
> congestion on the shared CFAF frequencies a safety concern, is
> evidence that the FAA is powerless to petition the FCC for the
> additional CTAF frequencies necessary to meet its federal mandate* to
> insure safe skies.

but that hasn't stopped them from adding all those AWOS frequencies. :-/

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On 1 Sep 2006 23:59:27 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote in
. com>:

>I must have missed something, not flying for awhile. How was "Any other
>traffic please advise" specifically prohibited?

It was reported recently in this newsgroup:



From: Kris Kortokrax >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Message-ID: >
Subject: Any traffic please advise
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:05:57 GMT

Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.

Kris

--------------------------------------------------------

The inane practice of using the phrase “any traffic please advise” has
become so wide spread that the FAA has finally included a “do not do
this” in the latest version of the AIM. You will find the following
quote at paragraph 4-1-9 G 1 in the latest version of the AIM:

Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position
or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated
CTAF. This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have
an FSS on the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used
if a pilot is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated
CTAF. Pilots stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a
recognized Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should
not be used under any condition.

If you do not have a current copy of the AIM, you can reference one
online at:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/

Bob Linenweber, ASI
314-890-4864


OPS DESIGNEE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

[Dan Luke]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:


> I'm with you. In fact, I start and finish my transmission with the
> airport name just because I know how *I* am with radio transmissions. I
> tend to float along not paying real attention and then it's "where did he
> say he was?". So I'll transmit "Rock Hill traffic, Cessna 32Q on left
> downwind for runway zero two, Rock Hill." It only takes a split second
> more but I figure it helps, not hurts.

Hear, hear!


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[john smith]

> left is standard.. right traffic is on the chart with annotations for the
> airport along with the airport elevation, lighting, runway length and
> frequency.. as in
> JEAN (0L7)
> 2832 *L 46 122.9
> RP 2R 20R
> or
> Sky Ranch (3L2)
> 2599 - 33 123.0
> RP 12

Interesting. I have never seen it.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?

I agree with them technically, but think that practically it is better
to add the left or right. :-)

Matt

[Roy Smith]

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> In article <YQ5Kg.1700$8J2.666@fed1read11>,
> "BTIZ" > wrote:
>
> > "Every "local" pilot may know the traffic is left or right.."
> > But how many transients do not (1) check the charting (2) look it up in the
> > AFD or (3) pay attention to what everyone else is doing.
>
> How is right or left traffic depicted on a Sectional Chart?

Look carefully at an uncontrolled airport with right traffic on a
sectional. You'll see something like "RP 16", meaning "Right Pattern on
runway 16". Any runways not mentioned have left traffic.

This is a new thing. The FAA just introduced it about, oh, 3 or 4 years
ago?

[Matt Whiting]

Wizard of Draws wrote:

> On 9/1/06 10:21 PM, in article
> , "Peter R."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Wizard of Draws > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think pilots are the most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet.
>>
>>And your point is?
>
>
> They very often lose sight of the forest for the trees.
> Is a _single word_ truly worth the bandwidth and time that will be used to
> debate whether it's proper to use it?

Then why did you then make a comment that will likely generate even more
wasted bandwidth for a topic far less useful than discussing proper
self-announcement phraseology?

Matt

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> And we all know everyone is flying with current charts. <G>
>
> Months after OXC got a tower, several pilots flew right in and landed!

I'm not at all surprised. That was a couple of years ago, and it still
feels strange talking to the tower there :-)

The charting was kind of funky at first, as I remember. It showed up as an
uncontrolled airport (i.e. magenta), with a CDAS around it. The next
edition of the chart showed it in blue.

[Jay Honeck]

> > I'm with you. In fact, I start and finish my transmission with the
> > airport name just because I know how *I* am with radio transmissions. I
> > tend to float along not paying real attention and then it's "where did he
> > say he was?". So I'll transmit "Rock Hill traffic, Cessna 32Q on left
> > downwind for runway zero two, Rock Hill." It only takes a split second
> > more but I figure it helps, not hurts.
>
> Hear, hear!

That's not just common sense -- it's also the FAA-approved phraseology.
It drives me nuts when people drop the last mention of their
location, cuz -- like you -- I often don't catch the first couple of
words of their transmission.

And, of course, there are those who start talking BEFORE they push the
button, and inadvertently cut off their first few syllables -- so the
final mention of their whereabouts is often their ONLY mention of their
whereabouts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > On the other hand, if the FAA presenter was a true spokesman for
> > official policy, perhaps his admission, that the FAA considers the
> > congestion on the shared CFAF frequencies a safety concern, is
> > evidence that the FAA is powerless to petition the FCC for the
> > additional CTAF frequencies necessary to meet its federal mandate* to
> > insure safe skies.
>
> but that hasn't stopped them from adding all those AWOS frequencies. :-/

This is a mystery to me. Out here in Iowa we rarely have a problem
with frequency congestion, but back in my home stomping grounds,
between Milwaukee and Chicago, there were days when 122.8 was nothing
but a high-pitched squeal.

In the year 2006, for airmen to still be limited to a tiny hand-full of
unicom frequencies seems *almost* as stupid as still suffering with
painfully abbreviated METARs and TAFs.

Ah, progress. It moves ever-so-slowly in the FAA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Emily[_1_]]

Cubdriver wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:02:12 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>> The real problem isn't "with you" or "left" or "looking",
>> but rather the windbags that take two minutes to say anything because
>> they haven't a clue.
>
> "Jeff--is that you?"
>
> "Yeah, it's me."
>
> "How ya doing?"
>
> "Okay, I guess."
>
> (Heard on a holiday weekend.)

The above is why I avoid small uncontrolled airports on the weekends.

[Emily[_1_]]

kontiki wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>
> I agree with the FAA. I've never added the "left" or "right" into
> my radio calls *unless* I am entering the pattern in a non-standard
> way. It really is redundant as according to FARs you are supposed to
> be familiar with runway information at the destination airport in
> advance of your flight.
>
>
So you'd rather assume everyone is familiar instead of including ONE
extra word and making sure? Very, very dangerous.

[Larry Dighera]

On 2 Sep 2006 06:43:28 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>In the year 2006, for airmen to still be limited to a tiny hand-full of
>unicom frequencies seems *almost* as stupid as still suffering ...

And consider, that despite frequency/channel separation changes over
the years resulting in the doubling of the number of available
channels, the number of CTAF frequencies has not increased.

[Bill Denton]

I believe it could be "authorized or required..." by entities other than
ATC, such as the airport operator. My understanding is that this is
sometimes done to avoid noise-sensitive areas...




"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > ...
> > In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> > redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> > right, if appropriate) hand traffic.
> > ...
> > What do you guys think?
>
> I remember having had a somewhat related discussion with some
> CAP folks concerning operations in non-controlled airfields. Now
> reading your piece, I went back to the regs just to make sure I
> was not imagining things. The one that talks about operating on
> or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace, 14 CFR 91.126,
> specifies, in its subparagraph (b) the direction of turns. Ok, it
> seems clear enough, one should turn left unless indicated otherwise.
>
> However, the subparagraph (a), as a general introduction, has
> the following magic words in it: "Unless otherwise authorized
> or required..." -- what does it mean exactly? Notice that
> unlike other parts of this chapter which use a similar wording,
> it does NOT say 'unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC',
> i.e., it does not mention ATC until subparagraph (d).
>
> My interpretation -- which might very well be mistaken, please
> correct me -- is that if someone has a compelling reason to do
> something different, whatever it might be, it is his or her call.
> Am I completely off here? seriously?
>
> And that's in a perfect world, where everybody knows exactly where
> they are, and announce it accurately, which is, as anyone who
> has operated in a reasonably busy uncontrolled airfield would know,
> a bit over optimistic. And you get people who take off in one
> direction and land in another, folks coming in from straight-in
> many miles away on an IFR approach, etc. pretty much anything goes,
> it can be a lot of fun actually.
>
> I other words, I agree with you that every bit helps and that
> announcing what you are doing is the sane thing to do (when possible),
> even by adding a bit of redundency just to be sure; besides I can't
> see how skipping *one* monosyllabic word is not going to reduce the
> radio chatter by much.
>
> --Sylvain

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 9/2/06 9:14 AM, in article , "Matt
Whiting" > wrote:

> Wizard of Draws wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/06 10:21 PM, in article
>> , "Peter R."
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Wizard of Draws > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think pilots are the most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet.
>>>
>>> And your point is?
>>
>>
>> They very often lose sight of the forest for the trees.
>> Is a _single word_ truly worth the bandwidth and time that will be used to
>> debate whether it's proper to use it?
>
> Then why did you then make a comment that will likely generate even more
> wasted bandwidth for a topic far less useful than discussing proper
> self-announcement phraseology?
>
> Matt

Did you read my first post, quoted above, where I wrote that pilots are the
most freakin' anal SOBs on the planet? QED.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 9/1/06 11:45 PM, in article
, "Peter R."
> wrote:

> Wizard of Draws > wrote:
>
>> Give 'em both barrels.
>
> Need a little help finishing today's NY Times crossword puzzle: The clue
> is "ill-tempered; grouchy; cross" and it is a five letter word beginning
> with c. Ideas?

Hmm, can't be cartoonist...
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Ronald Gardner]

Ditto! When I am coming in I'd like to know where that guy is, many times
they don't know the traffic is right hand, this tells me at least where to
look for him.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know

It's all about the role of redundancy in air safety. We carry redundant
equipment in our aircraft, in some cases it is mandated. We learn to
fly partial panel, but are still expected to use all cockpit resources.
We check the charts =and= the AFD; a lot of attention is paid to
eliminating "single point failure" modes.

When the single biggest cause of aviation headlines is pilot error,
saying "left" (or "right") multiplies the chance of catching it before
the press does, and does so at miniscule cost.

Maybe the FAA has stock in the newspaper companies?

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

[[email protected]]

Ronald Gardner > wrote:
> > Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> > presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> > saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> > clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> > knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> > naive.
> >
> > What do you guys think?

ITA with you and will continue to report LEFT or RIGHT downwind, not
just "downwind" *assuming* everyone knows where the pattern is. One of
the biggest things my CFI stressed during training was, *never ASSUME*
what other pilots know/see/are about to do.

ICAM with those who object to excessive unnecessary verbage -- pilots
"in the area" don't need to know you're on the ramp looking for the
restaurant. But it continues to amaze me what a big deal people make of
telling you you're "wrong" to include an "unapproved" word in radio
communication that CLEARLY makes your position or intentions more
specific/precise. The recent exchange over the word "looking" (for
traffic) was a prime example, IMO.

[Mike Rapoport]

I agree with your point of view. "Left" adds a lot of information to the
call. My personal peeve is pilots "taking the active" at uncontrolled
airports. Which runway is active? I have heard this on calm days at
backcountry airstrips where the pilot was the first to take off that day..

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:15:34 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
et>:

>From: "Mike Rapoport"

It's nice to see your words in the newsgroup again. This is your
second article posted this year, isn't it?

[Peter Dohm]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote:
> > I've been left downwind when a Business Jet decided to be "right"
downwind
> > for the same runway even though the airport is left traffic.
>
> Even more exciting is when you're on left downwind for 9 when somebody
> announces they're entering a right downwind for 27 :-)

Nah; more exciting is when they don't! :-)

[BTIZ]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> left is standard.. right traffic is on the chart with annotations for the
>> airport along with the airport elevation, lighting, runway length and
>> frequency.. as in
>> JEAN (0L7)
>> 2832 *L 46 122.9
>> RP 2R 20R
>> or
>> Sky Ranch (3L2)
>> 2599 - 33 123.0
>> RP 12
>
> Interesting. I have never seen it.

Does that mean you never go into an airport with a designated right had
traffic pattern?
Or does that mean that you never look at your charts?

just kidding..
BT

[BTIZ]

same thing happened at HND.. they had a tower, but no designated Class D
airspace
so it was magenta.. when the class D airspace was assigned.. it changed to
blue

BT

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> B A R R Y > wrote:
>
>> And we all know everyone is flying with current charts. <G>
>>
>> Months after OXC got a tower, several pilots flew right in and landed!
>
> I'm not at all surprised. That was a couple of years ago, and it still
> feels strange talking to the tower there :-)
>
> The charting was kind of funky at first, as I remember. It showed up as
> an
> uncontrolled airport (i.e. magenta), with a CDAS around it. The next
> edition of the chart showed it in blue.

[Peter Dohm]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > > I'm with you. In fact, I start and finish my transmission with the
> > > airport name just because I know how *I* am with radio transmissions.
I
> > > tend to float along not paying real attention and then it's "where did
he
> > > say he was?". So I'll transmit "Rock Hill traffic, Cessna 32Q on left
> > > downwind for runway zero two, Rock Hill." It only takes a split
second
> > > more but I figure it helps, not hurts.
> >
> > Hear, hear!
>
> That's not just common sense -- it's also the FAA-approved phraseology.
> It drives me nuts when people drop the last mention of their
> location, cuz -- like you -- I often don't catch the first couple of
> words of their transmission.
>
> And, of course, there are those who start talking BEFORE they push the
> button, and inadvertently cut off their first few syllables -- so the
> final mention of their whereabouts is often their ONLY mention of their
> whereabouts.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Very true and transmissions do get "stepped on", so it can't hurt to be
doubly sure.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:8thKg.2054$8J2.536@fed1read11...
>
> same thing happened at HND.. they had a tower, but no designated Class D
> airspace
> so it was magenta.. when the class D airspace was assigned.. it changed to
> blue
>

That wouldn't be the same thing.

[kontiki]

Emily wrote:
>
> So you'd rather assume everyone is familiar instead of including ONE
> extra word and making sure? Very, very dangerous.

Oh please... because someone doesn't say "left" before 'downwind' the
danger level drastically increases? I don't think think so. If you want
to say it fine but I do not think its necessary most of the time.

That's just my $.02

[Ron Lee]

I will still the term since there can be right hand traffic to a
parallel glider strip at 00V. I also agree that we need more CTAF
frequencies.

Ron Lee

[Jose[_1_]]

> That wouldn't be the same thing.

Depends on your definition of "same". If you expect it to mean
"identical", then no, the "same thing" could not happen at any other
airport. However, if it is taken to mean "normally synched items
appeared apparantly out of synch for a short while" then "the same
thing" happened there.

It just happened in reverse, so to speak.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Depends on your definition of "same". If you expect it to mean
> "identical", then no, the "same thing" could not happen at any other
> airport. However, if it is taken to mean "normally synched items appeared
> apparantly out of synch for a short while" then "the same thing" happened
> there.
>
> It just happened in reverse, so to speak.
>

It's not the same thing because one example had designated Class D airspace
while the other example did not have designated Class D airspace.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I would put it in the "one man's opinion" category and continue to use
it. No way can the statements of an FAA presenter be considered
official policy. I have caught ops inspectors in misstatements at
similar events and did not sit on my hands but got them to admit that
maybe further research was called for.

Bob Gardner

Bob Gardner

[Jose[_1_]]

> It's not the same thing because one example had designated Class D airspace
> while the other example did not have designated Class D airspace.

One case was tower but no D going to tower with D.
The other case was D but no tower, going to tower with D.

The initial (or middle) condition was that the normally synched tower/D
combination was out of synch. That is a degree of sameness.

True, they were out of synch in the opposite direction, so it was not
"identical". But the degree of sameness is sufficient (IMHO) for the
point of the post.

So, what exactly is the charting requirement for a magenta vs a blue
airport symbol? And what is the exact relationship between class D and
a tower?

And while I'm at it... Special VFR used to be available in a surface
area. With the new alphabet, is it available above the ceiling of the
class D?

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

[Peter Dohm]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
I admit that I don't presently fly. That said, to put it politely, I think
the guy is foolish.

BTW; those Safety Seminars, which normally also qualify for the Wings
Program, are normally hosted by an FAA Safety Program Manager who is a very
accomplished pilot and who scheduled the event and is responsible for it,
and who's name appeared on the advance notice of the seminar. However, due
to various circumstances, the seminar may actually be hosted by another
pilot who the Safety Program Manager believes can handle the task.

I would give the Safety Program Manager a call, or alternatively chat with
him at the next event where he is present, and make him aware of your
concern...

Peter

[RST Engineering]

The FAA guy had his thumb up his ass. At small uncontrolled field, pretty
much the ONLY thing the FAA can ding you on (besides the beloved "careless
and reckless") is the part 91 rule that, absent official information to the
contrary (i.e. indicated on the segmented circle, published in the AFD,
notamed, etc.) traffic is LEFT.

And how many of us can monitor our home unicom any given weekend and hear
some bumbling fool announce that (s)he is RIGHT downwind for the active?
Almost everybody. And the bumbler is guided, ever so gently (GET A CLUE,
LARDASS, WE'RE LEFT TRAFFIC) into the path of part 91 righteousness.

When I moved to GOO (nee 017) in '75, we too were on 122.8 and it was squeal
city. When the FAA opened up 123.0, three of us in the area moved over and
the squeal was cut by two-thirds. Then with firefighting activity in the
summer at two of those airports who were on 123.0 (Columbia and Grass
Valley) the leftover squeal became critical. So we did a listening watch on
the newly allocated unicom frequencies (google 47 CFR 87.217) on 122.7,
122.72, 122.8, 122.97, 123.0, 123.05, and 123.07 and picked 122.725 as the
least congested of the channels. I haven't heard squeal in two years, and we
are high enough to pick up the Sacramento, Oakland, and San Francisco areas.

Oh, but you love little 122.8 because that's what you grew up with and
learned as a student pilot and it is just too hard to leave? Learn to love
squeal.


Jim



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.

[RST Engineering]

Sorry, Larry, we've got seven of them now, with most of the new ones
sparsely used: (122.7, 122.72, 122.8, 122.97, 123.0, 123.05, and 123.07).

It only takes six months and a public hearing of the airport users to
petition the FAA/FCC for a new frequency.

Jim


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:56:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:


>
> On the other hand, if the FAA presenter was a true spokesman for
> official policy, perhaps his admission, that the FAA considers the
> congestion on the shared CFAF frequencies a safety concern, is
> evidence that the FAA is powerless to petition the FCC for the
> additional CTAF frequencies necessary to meet its federal mandate* to
> insure safe skies.

[Ron Garret]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?

It's a terrible idea.

Some airports have both left and right patterns operating simultaneously
for the same runway as part of their normal operations.

Even if the standard pattern is always either left or right, that's no
guarantee that everyone will be flying the standard pattern. Someone
might not know what the standard pattern is, or they might forget, or
they might decide not to fly it because of prevailing conditions.

Also, even if it is redundant, redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing
in aviation.

Finally, I think that the idea that omitting "left" and "right" will
free up significant time on the comm. frequency is questionable at best.

rg

[Ron Natalie]

BTIZ wrote:
> well.. I'd like to know what side of the airport the other pilot thinks he
> is on.. we are at an uncontrolled field.

Further I have operated out of airports that legitimately have traffic
operating out of both sides. Sometimes the opposite pattern is used
for things like:

Ultralights
Gliders
Helicopters.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

210.213.98.18On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:14:30 -0400, Roy Smith
> wrote:
> This is a new thing. The FAA just introduced it about, oh, 3 or 4 years
> ago?

Oh, so *that's* why we haven't noticed it on our charts -- it's not
there...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 2 Sep 2006 06:39:04 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> And, of course, there are those who start talking BEFORE they push the
> button, and inadvertently cut off their first few syllables -- so the
> final mention of their whereabouts is often their ONLY mention of their
> whereabouts.

But then they also unkey the mic before completing the transmission,
thus cutting off the airport name also...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:49:08 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> The above is why I avoid small uncontrolled airports on the weekends.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to actually go someplace that was actually
*friendly*, would we? <snicker>

[Jay Honeck]

> I agree with your point of view. "Left" adds a lot of information to the
> call. My personal peeve is pilots "taking the active" at uncontrolled
> airports. Which runway is active? I have heard this on calm days at
> backcountry airstrips where the pilot was the first to take off that day..
>
> Mike
> MU-2

Hey, Mike -- how's things with the Helio? Spend the summer landing on
postage-stamp gravel bars?

Haven't seen you post here in a long while -- glad you're back!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roy Smith]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> I agree with your point of view. "Left" adds a lot of information to the
> call. My personal peeve is pilots "taking the active" at uncontrolled
> airports. Which runway is active? I have heard this on calm days at
> backcountry airstrips where the pilot was the first to take off that day..

Amen.

Did a GPS-9 straight-in to a T&G at IJD just the other night. The moment I
started my missed approach, I head somebody announcing they were departing
27. All's fair in love, war, and uncontrolled fields.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:15:34 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:
> I agree with your point of view. "Left" adds a lot of information to the
> call. My personal peeve is pilots "taking the active" at uncontrolled
> airports. Which runway is active? I have heard this on calm days at
> backcountry airstrips where the pilot was the first to take off that day..

Yeah, that one never really made sense to me... After I've done my
runup on the taxiway area prior to the end of the runway and ensured
that there are no aircraft on final (or at least are far enough out to
not be a factor), right before moving past the hold short line prior
to taking off, I'll say:

"Southwest traffic, Grumman-581, departing 09"

At which point, I let off the brakes, start accelerating during the
turn from the taxiway to the runway and get off the runway as quick as
possible... I hate it when I see these students pull out on the
numbers and just sit there... Don't know what they're doing... Are
they fiddling with maps or have they just forgotten where the throttle
is?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>
> One case was tower but no D going to tower with D.
> The other case was D but no tower, going to tower with D.
>
> The initial (or middle) condition was that the normally synched tower/D
> combination was out of synch. That is a degree of sameness.
>
> True, they were out of synch in the opposite direction, so it was not
> "identical". But the degree of sameness is sufficient (IMHO) for the
> point of the post.
>

In other words, not the same thing.


>
> So, what exactly is the charting requirement for a magenta vs a blue
> airport symbol? And what is the exact relationship between class D and a
> tower?
>

A blue airport symbol indicates an airport with a control tower, a magenta
airport symbol indicates an airport without a control tower.


>
> And while I'm at it... Special VFR used to be available in a surface area.
>

It still is.


>
> With the new alphabet, is it available above the ceiling of the class D?
>

No. What would be the purpose of Special VFR above the ceiling of a surface
area?

[Jose[_1_]]

> "Southwest traffic, Grumman-581, departing 09"
>
> At which point, I let off the brakes, start accelerating during the
> turn from the taxiway to the runway and get off the runway as quick as
> possible... I hate it when I see these students pull out on the
> numbers and just sit there... Don't know what they're doing... Are
> they fiddling with maps or have they just forgotten where the throttle
> is?

I like to wait a moment before actually grabbing the runway. It gives a
chance for somebody else to say "red Mooney short final 09 Southwest".
Oops, musta missed that guy... there he is.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> In other words, not the same thing.

Well, what non-identical thing would qualify (in this context) as "the
same thing"?

> A blue airport symbol indicates an airport with a control tower, a magenta
> airport symbol indicates an airport without a control tower.

Got that. Does a control tower always mean class D (or better)? Does
class D always mean a control tower?

> What would be the purpose of Special VFR above the ceiling of a surface
> area?

The same as the purpose of SVFR in a surface area. One reason would be
to find VFR above a broken layer. It would of course require positive
control of the airspace, which is probably not available above the D.

Is the D equivalent to a "surface area"?

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

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

210.213.98.18On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:19:16 -0400, Roy Smith
> wrote:
> Did a GPS-9 straight-in to a T&G at IJD just the other night. The moment I
> started my missed approach, I head somebody announcing they were departing
> 27. All's fair in love, war, and uncontrolled fields.

Would you have preferred that he depart 27 *before* you started your
missed approach? I'm assuming that you announced your missed approach
and he at least waited for that before announcing that he was
departing from 27...

[Stefan]

Jose wrote:

> Does a control tower always mean class D (or better)?

No.

> Does class D always mean a control tower?

No.

> Is the D equivalent to a "surface area"?

No.


Stefan

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:38:09 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> I like to wait a moment before actually grabbing the runway. It gives a
> chance for somebody else to say "red Mooney short final 09 Southwest".
> Oops, musta missed that guy... there he is.

Well, since I usually have my canopy back so I can check for traffic
on final better, I guess I'm giving him a couple of seconds too since
that's about how long it takes for me to slide the canopy forward and
lock it prior to actually completing the turn to the runway... Of
course, with the canopy back, it's *very* difficult to not see a plane
on short final...

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Grumman-581 > wrote:

> 210.213.98.18On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:19:16 -0400, Roy Smith
> > wrote:
> > Did a GPS-9 straight-in to a T&G at IJD just the other night. The moment I
> > started my missed approach, I head somebody announcing they were departing
> > 27. All's fair in love, war, and uncontrolled fields.
>
> Would you have preferred that he depart 27 *before* you started your
> missed approach?

No, of course not. I'm not saying he did anything wrong. I was just using
this as a real-life example of why "the active" is a meaningless term at an
uncontrolled airport.

[Stefan]

Grumman-581 schrieb:

> I hate it when I see these students pull out on the
> numbers and just sit there... Don't know what they're doing... Are
> they fiddling with maps or have they just forgotten where the throttle
> is?

Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?

Stefan

[john smith]

In article >,
Grumman-581 > wrote:

> I hate it when I see these students pull out on the
> numbers and just sit there... Don't know what they're doing... Are
> they fiddling with maps or have they just forgotten where the throttle
> is?

Possibly setting their DG after checking the mag compass and making
certain they are on the correct runway.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:52:36 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
> No, of course not. I'm not saying he did anything wrong. I was just using
> this as a real-life example of why "the active" is a meaningless term at an
> uncontrolled airport.

Awh, I'm just razzing ya' a bit... <grin>

I've had people announce that they were departing 27 when I was on
final to 09 even though I'm coming in behind someone else who just
landed on 09... When you have a crosswind runway, either one is
probably about the same given that the winds around here are usually
either directly out of the south or *sometimes* directly out of the
north... Hell, I flunked by first checkride for my PPL because I
crabbed into a nonexistant crosswind and landed with my nosewheel 3 ft
off the centerline (of the 100 ft wide runway)... In all my flying at
that airport, I had *never* encountered wind directly straight down
the runway and it just so happened that it was that way on my
checkride...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:55:13 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:
> Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?

Well, it shouldn't take *that* long, but considering the fact that
there is a single runway at that airport and your choices are 09 and
27, I would hazard to guess that setting your gyro to your compass
while in the runup area is more than sufficient...

[john smith]

In article <xrhKg.2053$8J2.265@fed1read11>,
"BTIZ" > wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> left is standard.. right traffic is on the chart with annotations for the
> >> airport along with the airport elevation, lighting, runway length and
> >> frequency.. as in
> >> JEAN (0L7)
> >> 2832 *L 46 122.9
> >> RP 2R 20R
> >> or
> >> Sky Ranch (3L2)
> >> 2599 - 33 123.0
> >> RP 12
> >
> > Interesting. I have never seen it.
>
> Does that mean you never go into an airport with a designated right had
> traffic pattern?
> Or does that mean that you never look at your charts?

Anyone who has overflown Ohio knows that, with the exception of
southeast Ohio, you are rarely outside gliding distance of a suitable or
established landing area.
Ohio has several hundred public use and private airfields spread across
the Cincinnati and Detriot Sections.

Out of couriosity, I grabbed a chart. Looking at the Cincinnati
Sectional I found four in the southern half of Ohio. One local, the
other three 70-90 nm away. Three I knew had RP's and the fourth is a
grass stip down beside the Ohio River across from Huntington WV.
- Greater Portsmouth/KPMH has a tall hill on the west side.
- Middletown Hook/KMWO has no obstructions, they just want the traffic
over the river instead of over the town.
- Newlon/I41 has a couple tall towers on the other side of the river.
- Columbus Southwest/04I is adjacent to Darby Dan/6I6

[Larry Dighera]

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:56:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> On the other hand, if the FAA presenter was a true spokesman for
>> official policy, perhaps his admission, that the FAA considers the
>> congestion on the shared CFAF frequencies a safety concern, is
>> evidence that the FAA is powerless to petition the FCC for the
>> additional CTAF frequencies necessary to meet its federal mandate* to
>> insure safe skies.
>

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 09:29:14 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in >:

>Sorry, Larry, we've got seven of them now, with most of the new ones
>sparsely used: (122.7, 122.72, 122.8, 122.97, 123.0, 123.05, and 123.07).

I thought I recalled there being additional CTAF frequencies created
after a channel separation decrease at some time in the past. Thanks
for the information.

>It only takes six months and a public hearing of the airport users to
>petition the FAA/FCC for a new frequency.

So how does one go about petitioning the FAA for a different CTAF
frequency? Is there a specific form for it, or is a letter signed by
the appropriate airport official or group of resident pilots
sufficient to get the hearing scheduled?

What prevents the FAA from proactively re-evaluating the CTAF
frequency assignments globally within the NAS to reduce frequency
congestion? Are they just lazy, or unaware of the issue, or what? It
seems to me like a comprehensive plan of CTAF frequency assignments to
spread them among all the seven channels would be preferable to a
patchwork policy. Surely someone looking at the big picture is going
to be able to devise a better system than a system of oiling the
squeaky wheels as they occur.

[Ron Lee]

Grumman-581 > wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:55:13 +0200, Stefan >
>wrote:
>> Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?
>
>Well, it shouldn't take *that* long, but considering the fact that
>there is a single runway at that airport and your choices are 09 and
>27, I would hazard to guess that setting your gyro to your compass
>while in the runup area is more than sufficient...

If it not overcast and you know about what time it is the sun position
will tell you as well (daylight hours)

Not very high tech of course.

Ron Lee

[Jon Kraus]

Why? That is where all the pilots (and hence all the fun is)...

Speaking of clogging up the frequency... I was 15 out from Nappanee
(C02) Indiana trying to announce my arrival when I hear someone on the
frequency describing to someone else, what they did the previous
weekend, in minute detail... I swear the frequency was taking up by this
guy for 5 minutes straight... When he finished his diatribe I barely had
the time to announce my plans...

That was the first time I have ever heard this kind of frequency robbing
inconsiderateness... I swear it was like listening to some ham radio
operator with a bad case of verbal diarrhea...

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

Emily wrote:
> Cubdriver wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:02:12 GMT, Jose >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The real problem isn't "with you" or "left" or "looking", but rather
>>> the windbags that take two minutes to say anything because they
>>> haven't a clue.
>>
>>
>> "Jeff--is that you?"
>>
>> "Yeah, it's me."
>>
>> "How ya doing?"
>>
>> "Okay, I guess."
>>
>> (Heard on a holiday weekend.)
>
>
> The above is why I avoid small uncontrolled airports on the weekends.

[Jay Honeck]

> That was the first time I have ever heard this kind of frequency robbing
> inconsiderateness... I swear it was like listening to some ham radio
> operator with a bad case of verbal diarrhea...

We heard a lot of that on our flight into OSH this year.

The worst (thankfully, on an air-to-air frequency) was when a woman was
READING THE OSHKOSH NOTAM to another pilot, apparently flying with her
as a flight of two.

We were incredulous...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> >"Jeff--is that you?"
> >
> >"Yeah, it's me."
> >
> >"How ya doing?"
> >
> >"Okay, I guess."
> >
> >(Heard on a holiday weekend.)
>
> FWIW, I've only heard stuff like that on dead quiet frequencies. And
> when I do? Who cares?

well, with the number of airports on one frequency in the northeast US, there
really isn't anything like dead quiet during VFR days.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[karl gruber]

It just goes to show the FAA doesn't always know or teach safety. At
several airports here in the NW there is parachute jumping and these
guys use the other side for downwind. So do helicopters.

If the FAA were ACTUALLY interested in safety they would lobby for more
frequencies to be opened up for unicom. Their story that there aren't
enough frequencies to go around is just pure nonsense.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


Jay Honeck wrote:
> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
> prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded unicom
> frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
> knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
> naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

I managed five landings without rolling past the numbers with calm air the
other day. Making really short AND smooth landings AND hitting the exact
aimpoint has proved elusive. I can usually accomplish any two but not all
three. It gives me additional respect for the pilots demoing Helios at OSH.
We have had lots of fires in central ID where most of the more challenging
airstrips are so I haven't been to any of the short ones since June. I was
climbing in the Andes early in the year and then made an attempt on the
North side of Everest in the spring. I reached 25,000' without O2 and then
bailed for a variety of reasons.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I agree with your point of view. "Left" adds a lot of information to the
>> call. My personal peeve is pilots "taking the active" at uncontrolled
>> airports. Which runway is active? I have heard this on calm days at
>> backcountry airstrips where the pilot was the first to take off that
>> day..
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>
> Hey, Mike -- how's things with the Helio? Spend the summer landing on
> postage-stamp gravel bars?
>
> Haven't seen you post here in a long while -- glad you're back!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:49:08 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> The above is why I avoid small uncontrolled airports on the weekends.
>
> Yeah, we wouldn't want to actually go someplace that was actually
> *friendly*, would we? <snicker>

Of course, traffic at some uncontrolled airports look like film footage from
"The Batter of Britain". :~)

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:49:08 -0500, Emily >
>> wrote:
>>> The above is why I avoid small uncontrolled airports on the weekends.
>>
>> Yeah, we wouldn't want to actually go someplace that was actually
>> *friendly*, would we? <snicker>
>
> Of course, traffic at some uncontrolled airports look like film footage
> from "The Batter of Britain". :~)
>
[Dadgummit!] "BATTLE".

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> B A R R Y > wrote:
>
>> >"Jeff--is that you?"
>> >
>> >"Yeah, it's me."
>> >
>> >"How ya doing?"
>> >
>> >"Okay, I guess."
>> >
>> >(Heard on a holiday weekend.)
>>
>> FWIW, I've only heard stuff like that on dead quiet frequencies. And
>> when I do? Who cares?
>
> well, with the number of airports on one frequency in the northeast US,
> there
> really isn't anything like dead quiet during VFR days.
>
Come out west, young man!

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Does a control tower always mean class D (or better)?
> No.
>
>> Does class D always mean a control tower?
> No.
>
>> Is the D equivalent to a "surface area"?
> No.

Ok. I checked the AIM. A "surface area" is the airspace contained by
the lateral boundries of B, C, D, or E airspace designated for an
airport tha begins at the surface and extends upwards.

Indefinately? To outer space? To the limit of that class airspace?

Special VFR operations are conducted within a class B, C, D, or E
surface area. Class E airspace is controlled airspace that is not A, B,
C, or D.

So, if a class D surrounding an airport is overlain by class E, it seems
I should be able to get a special VFR clearance up to 18000 feet (where
class A generally begins). No?

When would an operating control tower not induce class D (or better)
airspace? When would a class D airspace not have a control tower? They
are usually correlated, but I seem to remember that they are not
necessarily correlated.

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

[Emily[_1_]]

kontiki wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>>
>> So you'd rather assume everyone is familiar instead of including ONE
>> extra word and making sure? Very, very dangerous.
>
> Oh please... because someone doesn't say "left" before 'downwind' the
> danger level drastically increases? I don't think think so. If you want
> to say it fine but I do not think its necessary most of the time.
>
> That's just my $.02
>
Ok, keep assuming most pilots know what they are doing. But please let
me know which airport you fly out of.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:49:08 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> The above is why I avoid small uncontrolled airports on the weekends.
>
> Yeah, we wouldn't want to actually go someplace that was actually
> *friendly*, would we? <snicker>

ADS is pretty damn friendly, and the busyness keeps away a lot of idiots.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > well, with the number of airports on one frequency in the northeast US,
> > there
> > really isn't anything like dead quiet during VFR days.
> >
> Come out west, young man!

family commitments.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily[_1_]]

Stefan wrote:
> Grumman-581 schrieb:
>
>> I hate it when I see these students pull out on the
>> numbers and just sit there... Don't know what they're doing... Are
>> they fiddling with maps or have they just forgotten where the throttle
>> is?
>
> Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?
>
> Stefan
Or making sure they are on the right runway...

[Emily[_1_]]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Why? That is where all the pilots (and hence all the fun is)...
>
> Speaking of clogging up the frequency... I was 15 out from Nappanee
> (C02) Indiana trying to announce my arrival when I hear someone on the
> frequency describing to someone else, what they did the previous
> weekend, in minute detail... I swear the frequency was taking up by this
> guy for 5 minutes straight... When he finished his diatribe I barely had
> the time to announce my plans...
>
> That was the first time I have ever heard this kind of frequency robbing
> inconsiderateness... I swear it was like listening to some ham radio
> operator with a bad case of verbal diarrhea...

The biggest offender I've ever noticed is MCX. I don't know who they
share the CTAF with, but I swear I used to know everyone's weekend plans
in central Indiana. NONE OF US CARE!!!

[cjcampbell]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2006 23:59:27 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote in
> . com>:
>
> >I must have missed something, not flying for awhile. How was "Any other
> >traffic please advise" specifically prohibited?
>
> It was reported recently in this newsgroup:
>
>
>
> From: Kris Kortokrax >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Message-ID: >
> Subject: Any traffic please advise
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:05:57 GMT
>
> Just received the following from the FAA Designee Notification system.
> Checked out the AIM on the FAA web site and the wording is included.

Thanks. Current copies of AIM are a little difficult to come by here in
the Philippines.

Looks like I have a little reading to catch up on if I am thinking of
instructing again.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..

>
> Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?
>

That wouldn't require them to stop.

[Scott Draper]

<< IMHO, saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most
importantly -->>

Jay:

There is a larger issue here. If you buy into the idea that we should
minimize the length of our transmissions, the only means to do this is
to track down each unnecessary word and eliminate it. Each word by
itself is almost insignificant, but if you let this consideration sway
you, you would end up eliminating nothing.

Similar to when you're dieting. When confronted with a Twinkie, it's
easy to say "It's only 200 calories", but when you give in on this
Twinkie, you're likely to give in on them all.

So I say eliminate the "left/right" thing as an exercise of
self-discipline.

What I would most like to see eliminated, however, is "Uhm." Most
people slip about four of these into every transmission. "Podunk
Traffic, uhm, Cessna 1234X, uhm, left downwind, uhm, 36, uhm, Podunk."

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Grumman-581 wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:49:08 -0500, Emily >
>> wrote:
>>> The above is why I avoid small uncontrolled airports on the weekends.
>>
>> Yeah, we wouldn't want to actually go someplace that was actually
>> *friendly*, would we? <snicker>
>
> ADS is pretty damn friendly, and the busyness keeps away a lot of idiots.

That's the same thing we say at the busy uncontrolled field I fly out of.

[Emily[_1_]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Grumman-581 wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:49:08 -0500, Emily >
>>> wrote:
>>>> The above is why I avoid small uncontrolled airports on the weekends.
>>> Yeah, we wouldn't want to actually go someplace that was actually
>>> *friendly*, would we? <snicker>
>> ADS is pretty damn friendly, and the busyness keeps away a lot of idiots.
>
> That's the same thing we say at the busy uncontrolled field I fly out of.

I've just had bad experiences at uncontrolled fields. Might be a
Indiana thing, but they sure seem to attract a lot of idiots.

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you buy into the idea that we should
> minimize the length of our transmissions...

I don't buy into that idea at all. Transmissions should be an
appropriate length for the subject matter being transmitted. The
subject matter should be appropriate to transmit.

Properly done, redundancy adds to safety.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> > well, with the number of airports on one frequency in the northeast US,
>> > there
>> > really isn't anything like dead quiet during VFR days.
>> >
>> Come out west, young man!
>
> family commitments.
>
Bring 'em with ya, we don't mind!

[BTIZ]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> BTIZ wrote:
>> well.. I'd like to know what side of the airport the other pilot thinks
>> he is on.. we are at an uncontrolled field.
>
> Further I have operated out of airports that legitimately have traffic
> operating out of both sides. Sometimes the opposite pattern is used
> for things like:
>
> Ultralights
> Gliders
> Helicopters.

Are you talking opposite patterns to the same runway?
We have two runways.. parallel.. power on the west and longer runway..
Gliders and what ever else, on the east and shorter runway.. power and helo
traffic do use it when not in use by gliders
BT

[Jay Honeck]

> I managed five landings without rolling past the numbers with calm air the
> other day. Making really short AND smooth landings AND hitting the exact
> aimpoint has proved elusive. I can usually accomplish any two but not all
> three. It gives me additional respect for the pilots demoing Helios at OSH.

I can't imagine what flying something like that must be like. Very
challenging, it sounds like!


> I was
> climbing in the Andes early in the year and then made an attempt on the
> North side of Everest in the spring. I reached 25,000' without O2 and then
> bailed for a variety of reasons.

Um, isn't life pretty much unsustainable at that altitude without
oxygen?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Scott Draper]

<<Properly done, redundancy adds to safety.>>

We're talking about useless information, not redundancy, even though I
suppose that's a form of useless information. Many people feel that
their transmissions are "appropriate length" yet others are
exasperated that the guy is tying up the frequency with irrelevant
details.

Since our goal in communications is usually to provide others with
information they need, they're logically the best ones to determine
whether or not our transmissions are "appropriate length." The AIM is
a good starting point and it emphasizes brevity and I suspect most
pilots value that as well.

Here are the steps I find useful:

1) Think about what you're going to say
2) Remove the noise words
3) Delete details the listener doesn't care about
4) Substitute standard phraseology
5) Press the PTT
6) Say it
7) Release the PTT

Granted, I don't go through all those steps on every transmissions,
but I do this analysis with students to help them communicate more
clearly. Over time, it becomes automatic.

Those pilots who say what needs to be said, no more, no less, are
wonderful to listen to.

[Marty Shapiro]

Sylvain > wrote in
t:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> ...
>> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
>> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
>> right, if appropriate) hand traffic.
>> ...
>> What do you guys think?
>
> I remember having had a somewhat related discussion with some
> CAP folks concerning operations in non-controlled airfields. Now
> reading your piece, I went back to the regs just to make sure I
> was not imagining things. The one that talks about operating on
> or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace, 14 CFR 91.126,
> specifies, in its subparagraph (b) the direction of turns. Ok, it
> seems clear enough, one should turn left unless indicated otherwise.
>
> However, the subparagraph (a), as a general introduction, has
> the following magic words in it: "Unless otherwise authorized
> or required..." -- what does it mean exactly? Notice that
> unlike other parts of this chapter which use a similar wording,
> it does NOT say 'unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC',
> i.e., it does not mention ATC until subparagraph (d).
>
> My interpretation -- which might very well be mistaken, please
> correct me -- is that if someone has a compelling reason to do
> something different, whatever it might be, it is his or her call.
> Am I completely off here? seriously?
>
>
>
> --Sylvain

I suspect the "unless otherwise authorized or required" refers to
situations where IFR requires one thing while VFR requires the other. Take
a look at Watsonville (WVI). All runways are left hand traffic. If you
are on the VOR/DME GPS A approach, you must circle to land and the approach
chart states "Circling not authorized west of Rwy 2-20." VFR to Rwy 2 is
left hand traffic, while an IFR approach circle-to-land on Rwy 2 will be
right hand traffic.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>
> I agree with the FAA. I've never added the "left" or "right" into
> my radio calls *unless* I am entering the pattern in a non-standard
> way. It really is redundant as according to FARs you are supposed to
> be familiar with runway information at the destination airport in
> advance of your flight.
>
>

Ok. On a MVFR day, someone is practicing pattern work at KWVI. The
wind favors Rwy 2, which is left hand traffic. Meanwhile, someone is
practicing the VOR/DME approach, which is circle-to-land to any runway.
The chart notes that circling is prohibited west of Rwy 2-20. So, you now
have one aircraft on left downwind to 2 and another on right downwind to 2.
Both pilots are familiar with the airport, the runway, the traffic
pattern and are both following the standard required for the approach they
are flying. Both pilots are flying a standard approach. Are you saying
that there is no value in stating "left" or "right" downwind?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Dave S]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> What do you guys think?
> --

I think you and mary have a healthy attitude toward safety. Dont change.

Dave

[.Blueskies.]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
..
:
: When I first read that, I was in agreement, but considering that a
: pilot has the option to enter the pattern at his discretion from any
: point, perhaps omitting the word 'left' might cause others to check
: both downwind legs thus overcoming any ambiguity possibly introduced
: by those pilots who don't know their right from their left.
:

Hmmm, good thought, make us check all the possibilities...

[.Blueskies.]

"Emily" > wrote in message ...
: Jose wrote:
: >> (Ok, so I had a startlingly good conversation with our PMI today,
: >> which slightly rekindled my faith in the FAA....probably not deserved)
: >
: > Care to share?
: >
: > Jose
: Oh, nothing piloting related...we had a SUP show up on the doorstep last
: week and he's going to help us do everything we can to figure out where
: it came from and what to do with it. I just wasn't expecting that kind
: of support...I'm used to the FAA either blowing me off and jumping in
: and taking over. I've been fairly impressed by this particular FSDO.

Well, that SUP program is one of their pet projects, so I am sure you will get all kinds of help finding the source -
that helps to justify their existence.

[.Blueskies.]

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:C11E7430.92095%jeffbREMOVETHIS@REMOVEALSOwiza rdofdraws.com...

: Jay asked us what we thought. Reason enough as any to start a debate here,
: as Jay well knows, especially if it's about something trivial. The smaller
: the nit, the longer the thread. Jeff's Law.
:


I like that, I hadn't heard of the law, and it does seem to be true...Jeff's law, eh? Thanks!

[Stefan]

Emily schrieb:

>> Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?

> Or making sure they are on the right runway...

There are those who grasp irony and there are those who don't.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:

>> Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?

> That wouldn't require them to stop.

Depends on the length of the runway. And on the student's experience.

[Stefan]

Jose schrieb:

> When would an operating control tower not induce class D (or better)
> airspace? When would a class D airspace not have a control tower?

I can't give you an example in the USA, but where I live, there are
controlled airports without a control zone.

Controlled airfield means the tower controls the runway. Control zone
means the controller controls the traffic around the airfield. These two
are not nessecarily related. (Although they typically come together.)

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Depends on the length of the runway. And on the student's experience.
>

It depends on neither.

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:

>> Depends on the length of the runway. And on the student's experience.

> It depends on neither.

Yes it does.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes it does.
>

How so?

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:

>> Yes it does.

> How so?

Why not?

[Larry Dighera]

On 2 Sep 2006 19:37:27 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote in
om>:

>
>Thanks. Current copies of AIM are a little difficult to come by here in
>the Philippines.

Of course, the on-line versions of AIM and FARs are the only truly
current versions, as they are updated as soon as changes are made.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Why not?
>

Exactly.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Well, what non-identical thing would qualify (in this context) as "the
> same thing"?
>

You'll have to tell me. What was the point of your response to my
statement?


>
> Got that. Does a control tower always mean class D (or better)?
>

No.


>
> Does class D always mean a control tower?
>

No.


>
> The same as the purpose of SVFR in a surface area.
>

The purpose of SVFR in a surface area is usually to get in or out of an
airport within it when it cannot be done under basic VFR. Please explain
how that can be done while remaining above the ceiling of the Class D
airspace.


>
> One reason would be
> to find VFR above a broken layer. It would of course require positive
> control of the airspace, which is probably not available above the D.
>

What do you do if you don't find it?


>
> Is the D equivalent to a "surface area"?
>

A surface area is the airspace contained by the lateral boundary of
controlled airspace designated for an airport that begins at the surface and
extends upward. In the US, they come in Class B, C, D, and Class E flavors.

[Dan Luke]

"Emily" wrote:
>
> I've just had bad experiences at uncontrolled fields. Might be a Indiana
> thing, but they sure seem to attract a lot of idiots.

Indeed.

I'm proud to be a pilot; I reckon it is a skill that takes some special
competence to acquire and maintain. But hearing and seeing how some of the
goobers operate airplanes can sure take some of that special shine off the
certificate.

And no, it's not just an Indiana thing. I'll put Alabama goobers up against
any you've got.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

> We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
> (who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
> calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and
> now-specifically prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")
>
> To our surprise, he claimed that the common phraseology "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering left downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City" is
> incorrect. In short, he stated that you should say "Iowa City
> Traffic, N56993 entering downwind for Runway 25, Iowa City", omitting
> the word "left".
>
> In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
> redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
> right, if appropriate) hand traffic. In high traffic areas, the FAA
> thinks that omitting this single word will open the over-crowded
> unicom frequencies so that other pilots can squeeze a word in.
>
> Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
> presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
> saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
> clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that
> everyone knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my
> experience, naive.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
At one of the uncontrolled airports I use helos regularly fly the pattern
opposite the fixed wing traffic. Also, bizjets do most anything they want.
When I'm in the pattern, I really appreciate knowing which way to look
without having to guess or hunt. There are better things to concentratate
on when preparing to land. Apparently, the FAA's "verbal efficiency
experts" are running out of things to do.

Neil

[Jose[_1_]]

> We're talking about useless information, not redundancy, even though I
> suppose that's a form of useless information.

We're talking about "left" or "right". This is not useless information.
It is extremely useful information. The assumption being made (by the
FAA) is that other pilots will already have that information, making it
redundant. I claim many pilots =don't= have the information, and thus
the redundancy is useful too.

I do not consider "left" or "right" to be noise words in this context.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> You'll have to tell me. What was the point of your response to my
> statement?

I don't know what the point is in responding to any of your statements.
But in any case you were saying "that's not the same thing". If you
are being so pedantic that by "same" you mean "identical", then your
statement is worthless - nothing that happens at one airport is idential
to what happens at a different airport - they are different airports.
But if you take "same" to mean "similar enough", then we merely differ
on how "enough" it is. The two things were the reverse of each other
but shared the property of being out of normal synch for a moment.

> The purpose of SVFR in a surface area is usually to get in or out of an
> airport within it when it cannot be done under basic VFR. Please explain
> how that can be done while remaining above the ceiling of the Class D
> airspace.

It cannot. However, if the marginal conditions continue to exist above
the D for some distance into the overlying E, then one can get out of
the airport by flying SFFR through the D, and through however much of
the E is necessary. If SVFR is available in that E, within D's
footprint, then it can be done. If not, then it can't. Sometimes this
makes a difference in being able to get out VFR.

> What do you do if you don't find it?

Come back and land.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Ok. I checked the AIM. A "surface area" is the airspace contained by the
> lateral boundries of B, C, D, or E airspace designated for an airport tha
> begins at the surface and extends upwards.
>
> Indefinately? To outer space? To the limit of that class airspace?
>
> Special VFR operations are conducted within a class B, C, D, or E surface
> area. Class E airspace is controlled airspace that is not A, B, C, or D.
>
> So, if a class D surrounding an airport is overlain by class E, it seems I
> should be able to get a special VFR clearance up to 18000 feet (where
> class A generally begins). No?
>

No. The SVFR clearance includes the surface area by name; "Cleared out of
Smallville Class D surface area, maintain Special VFR conditions." Once you
exit the Class D airspace the SVFR clearance no longer applies.

SVFR is also limited to below 10,000 MSL.


>
> When would an operating control tower not induce class D (or better)
> airspace?
>

Surface areas require weather observations. I don't know if any still exist
but when airspace was reclassified in 1993 there were still a handful of
airports with operating control towers but without weather observing. These
airports had control towers in Class G airspace.

You may also encounter temporary control towers in Class E or G airspace,
such as the one at Fond du Lac during AirVenture.


>
> When would a class D airspace not have a control tower? They
> are usually correlated, but I seem to remember that they are not
> necessarily correlated.
>

When some knucklehead operating in an official capacity but beyond his
abilities and knowledge thinks it should be that way. The only example I'm
currently aware of is at SEA.

El Toro MCAS used to have Class D airspace adjacent to the Class C airspace
that didn't even reach the surface.

Pearson Field in Vancouver, WA, had Class D airspace from the surface to the
overlying Portland Class C airspace. Pearson had no control tower and was
the only airport in the Class D surface area. It now has a Class E surface
area.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> When would an operating control tower not induce class D (or better)
>> airspace?
> Surface areas require weather observations.

Thanks. That was the missing link. (of course, some would say that =I=
am the missing link... we won't go there. :)

>>When would a class D airspace not have a control tower?
> When some knucklehead...

Aha! Maybe the knucklehead is the missing link. So much for
"intellegent design".

> The SVFR clearance includes the surface area by name; "Cleared out of
> Smallville Class D surface area, maintain Special VFR conditions." Once you
> exit the Class D airspace the SVFR clearance no longer applies.

Ok, so in this case I would not have been cleared above the D.

I presume that the only way to get SVFR clearance in an E is if that E
extends to the ground, and is part of a surface area?

Is it possible (albeit unlikely) to get SVFR up through a D into
overlying C?

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I don't know what the point is in responding to any of your statements.

Then don't respond.


>
> But in any case you were saying "that's not the same thing". If you are
> being so pedantic that by "same" you mean "identical", then your statement
> is worthless - nothing that happens at one airport is idential to what
> happens at a different airport - they are different airports. But if you
> take "same" to mean "similar enough", then we merely differ on how
> "enough" it is. The two things were the reverse of each other but shared
> the property of being out of normal synch for a moment.
>

They were not the same thing because one had Class D airspace and the other
did not. Apparently that is beyond your ability to understand.


>
> It cannot.
>

Correct!


>
> However, if the marginal conditions continue to exist above the D for some
> distance into the overlying E, then one can get out of the airport by
> flying SFFR through the D, and through however much of the E is necessary.
> If SVFR is available in that E, within D's footprint, then it can be done.
> If not, then it can't. Sometimes this makes a difference in being able to
> get out VFR.
>

Okay. The same conditions exist in the cylinder of Class E airspace between
the Class D ceiling and 10,000 MSL that exist in the Class D itself. Let's
say the SVFR clearance applies to that airspace too. What are you gonna do
once you reach it? Unless the conditions outside of it are basic VFR or
better you can't leave that cylinder of airspace that overlies the Class D.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I presume that the only way to get SVFR clearance in an E is if that E
> extends to the ground, and is part of a surface area?
>

SVFR exists ONLY in a surface area.


>
> Is it possible (albeit unlikely) to get SVFR up through a D into overlying
> C?
>

An aircraft can be issued SVFR to climb to VFR conditions if the only
weather limitation is restricted visibility, but it would have to reach
basic VFR conditions while within the surface area.

"Climb to VFR within the Smallville surface area, maintain Special VFR
conditions until reaching VFR."

[Emily[_1_]]

..Blueskies. wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message ...
> : Jose wrote:
> : >> (Ok, so I had a startlingly good conversation with our PMI today,
> : >> which slightly rekindled my faith in the FAA....probably not deserved)
> : >
> : > Care to share?
> : >
> : > Jose
> : Oh, nothing piloting related...we had a SUP show up on the doorstep last
> : week and he's going to help us do everything we can to figure out where
> : it came from and what to do with it. I just wasn't expecting that kind
> : of support...I'm used to the FAA either blowing me off and jumping in
> : and taking over. I've been fairly impressed by this particular FSDO.
>
> Well, that SUP program is one of their pet projects, so I am sure you will get all kinds of help finding the source -
> that helps to justify their existence.

Well, in this case, someone needs to find out what happened, and if it
takes the FAA to keep our suppliers in line, so be it. This one is just
not safe.

[Emily[_1_]]

Stefan wrote:
> Emily schrieb:
>
>>> Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?
>
>> Or making sure they are on the right runway...
>
> There are those who grasp irony and there are those who don't.
>
> Stefan

I was fully aware, just wanted to see who else was..

[Jose[_1_]]

> Okay. The same conditions exist in the cylinder of Class E airspace between
> the Class D ceiling and 10,000 MSL that exist in the Class D itself. Let's
> say the SVFR clearance applies to that airspace too. What are you gonna do
> once you reach it? Unless the conditions outside of it are basic VFR or
> better you can't leave that cylinder of airspace that overlies the Class D.

But what if the those conditions exist only halfway up the cylinder? If
you could get SVFR in the entire cylinder, including the E, you climb in
the D to the E, and in the E to the top of the cloud layer to where VFR
conditions exist, go up another thousand feet, and exit.

If you could not get SVFR in the E, you could not do this.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> "Climb to VFR within the Smallville surface area, maintain Special VFR
> conditions until reaching VFR."

If the Smallville class D underlies class E, would this clearance permit
me to clime above the D into the E under SVFR? There was no class D
limitation in this clearance.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> If the Smallville class D underlies class E, would this clearance permit
> me to clime above the D into the E under SVFR?
>

No.


>
> There was no class D limitation in this clearance.
>

Yes there was, "Climb to VFR within the Smallville surface area."

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> But what if the those conditions exist only halfway up the cylinder? If
> you could get SVFR in the entire cylinder, including the E, you climb in
> the D to the E, and in the E to the top of the cloud layer to where VFR
> conditions exist, go up another thousand feet, and exit.
>

Yes, you could do it under those conditions.


>
> If you could not get SVFR in the E, you could not do this.
>

And since you can't get SVFR outside of the surface area you cannot do it.

[BTIZ]

> north... Hell, I flunked by first checkride for my PPL because I
> crabbed into a nonexistant crosswind and landed with my nosewheel 3 ft
> off the centerline (of the 100 ft wide runway)... In all my flying at
> that airport, I had *never* encountered wind directly straight down
> the runway and it just so happened that it was that way on my
> checkride...

Where is it in the Private PTS that the nose wheel has to be on or within x
feet of centerline?

BT

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:dEDKg.2187$8J2.754@fed1read11...
>>
>> north... Hell, I flunked by first checkride for my PPL because I
>> crabbed into a nonexistant crosswind and landed with my nosewheel 3 ft
>> off the centerline (of the 100 ft wide runway)... In all my flying at
>> that airport, I had *never* encountered wind directly straight down
>> the runway and it just so happened that it was that way on my
>> checkride...
>>
>
> Where is it in the Private PTS that the nose wheel has to be on or within
> x feet of centerline?
>

Well, if it was three feet off the centerline while the mains were
equidistant from it because he was crabbed into a nonexistent crosswind...

[RST Engineering]

Yeah. Bring your money and your daughters. Now GO HOME.

{;-)

Jim


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>
>> family commitments.
>>
> Bring 'em with ya, we don't mind!
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:36:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>:

>El Toro MCAS used to have Class D airspace adjacent to the Class C airspace
>that didn't even reach the surface.

Because I operate out of KSNA, that's an interesting bit of (old) news
to me. I can't put my hands on an old chart at the moment. Can you
tell me how the MCAS El Toro Class D airspace was structured if it
didn't reach the surface?


---------------------------------------------------
El Toro yesterday and today:
http://www.ocgp.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=54

[john smith]

> > Maybe they are doing a last check of the runway alignement?

> That wouldn't require them to stop.

East-west runway,magnetic compass heading affected by ANDS

[Jose[_1_]]

>>There was no class D limitation in this clearance.
> Yes there was, "Climb to VFR within the Smallville surface area."

.... and thus the crux of my question. Where does it say where the
Smallvill surface area stops (vertically). The glossary in the AIM just
says "upwards" but does not say how far up. There is no reason to infer
that it would stop at a class boundary. There is a reason to infer that
it would stop at the top of controlled airspace (where the VFR rules are
"clear of clouds" anyway); that reason would be that special VFR
requires a clearance, and clearances cannot be given in uncontrolled
airspace. But if E or C overlays D, you're still in controlled
airspace, and there is no reason a D controller could not coordinate
with the owner of the airspace above the D.

If there is a place where it says where the top of a surface area is,
I'd like to see it.

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

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I managed five landings without rolling past the numbers with calm air
>> the
>> other day. Making really short AND smooth landings AND hitting the exact
>> aimpoint has proved elusive. I can usually accomplish any two but not
>> all
>> three. It gives me additional respect for the pilots demoing Helios at
>> OSH.
>
> I can't imagine what flying something like that must be like. Very
> challenging, it sounds like!
>

It is always difficult to get every bit of performance out of an aircraft.
Usually we make it easier by using approach speeds that are high and settle
onto the runway. To put it down on the first foot of pavement at the
absolute minimium speed is a challenge in anything.


>
>> I was
>> climbing in the Andes early in the year and then made an attempt on the
>> North side of Everest in the spring. I reached 25,000' without O2 and
>> then
>> bailed for a variety of reasons.
>
> Um, isn't life pretty much unsustainable at that altitude without
> oxygen?

Depends on what you consider unsustainable. The highest permanant
settlement is about 18,000'. Personally I felt that I was constantly
deteriorating above 21,000'.

[Jim Macklin]

How many months do you live at altitude, before climbing the
next 5,000 feet? In other words, as I understand, a healthy
person can climb, 5 to 10 thousand feet above their living
altitude before hypoxia become serious. If you live at
10,000 feet for 6 months to a year, your body adjust and
adapts to that pressure and oxygen levels, you then can
climb or fly higher. If you return to sea level you may be
"super charged" or even get sick for a short while until you
readapt.

In the 1940 and 50s, I understand it took many moths for
Everest climbers to portage several higher and higher base
camps, before the actual assault on the top.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| >> I managed five landings without rolling past the
numbers with calm air
| >> the
| >> other day. Making really short AND smooth landings AND
hitting the exact
| >> aimpoint has proved elusive. I can usually accomplish
any two but not
| >> all
| >> three. It gives me additional respect for the pilots
demoing Helios at
| >> OSH.
| >
| > I can't imagine what flying something like that must be
like. Very
| > challenging, it sounds like!
| >
|
| It is always difficult to get every bit of performance out
of an aircraft.
| Usually we make it easier by using approach speeds that
are high and settle
| onto the runway. To put it down on the first foot of
pavement at the
| absolute minimium speed is a challenge in anything.
|
|
| >
| >> I was
| >> climbing in the Andes early in the year and then made
an attempt on the
| >> North side of Everest in the spring. I reached 25,000'
without O2 and
| >> then
| >> bailed for a variety of reasons.
| >
| > Um, isn't life pretty much unsustainable at that
altitude without
| > oxygen?
|
| Depends on what you consider unsustainable. The highest
permanant
| settlement is about 18,000'. Personally I felt that I was
constantly
| deteriorating above 21,000'.
|
|
|
|

[Mike Rapoport]

You can ascend about 1000'/day It works out to a little less when you go
really high (above 20,000'). The only risk coming down is to avoid getting
dehydrated as you are prone to clots (this is a risk when at altitude too).


Mike
MU-2

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:bJKKg.6828$SZ3.1875@dukeread04...
> How many months do you live at altitude, before climbing the
> next 5,000 feet? In other words, as I understand, a healthy
> person can climb, 5 to 10 thousand feet above their living
> altitude before hypoxia become serious. If you live at
> 10,000 feet for 6 months to a year, your body adjust and
> adapts to that pressure and oxygen levels, you then can
> climb or fly higher. If you return to sea level you may be
> "super charged" or even get sick for a short while until you
> readapt.
>
> In the 1940 and 50s, I understand it took many moths for
> Everest climbers to portage several higher and higher base
> camps, before the actual assault on the top.
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> |
> | "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> |
> ups.com...
> | >> I managed five landings without rolling past the
> numbers with calm air
> | >> the
> | >> other day. Making really short AND smooth landings AND
> hitting the exact
> | >> aimpoint has proved elusive. I can usually accomplish
> any two but not
> | >> all
> | >> three. It gives me additional respect for the pilots
> demoing Helios at
> | >> OSH.
> | >
> | > I can't imagine what flying something like that must be
> like. Very
> | > challenging, it sounds like!
> | >
> |
> | It is always difficult to get every bit of performance out
> of an aircraft.
> | Usually we make it easier by using approach speeds that
> are high and settle
> | onto the runway. To put it down on the first foot of
> pavement at the
> | absolute minimium speed is a challenge in anything.
> |
> |
> | >
> | >> I was
> | >> climbing in the Andes early in the year and then made
> an attempt on the
> | >> North side of Everest in the spring. I reached 25,000'
> without O2 and
> | >> then
> | >> bailed for a variety of reasons.
> | >
> | > Um, isn't life pretty much unsustainable at that
> altitude without
> | > oxygen?
> |
> | Depends on what you consider unsustainable. The highest
> permanant
> | settlement is about 18,000'. Personally I felt that I was
> constantly
> | deteriorating above 21,000'.
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> East-west runway,magnetic compass heading affected by ANDS
>

The magnetic compass isn't needed to do a last check of the runway
alignment.

[Jim Macklin]

Thanks.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
| You can ascend about 1000'/day It works out to a little
less when you go
| really high (above 20,000'). The only risk coming down is
to avoid getting
| dehydrated as you are prone to clots (this is a risk when
at altitude too).
|
|
| Mike
| MU-2
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:bJKKg.6828$SZ3.1875@dukeread04...
| > How many months do you live at altitude, before climbing
the
| > next 5,000 feet? In other words, as I understand, a
healthy
| > person can climb, 5 to 10 thousand feet above their
living
| > altitude before hypoxia become serious. If you live at
| > 10,000 feet for 6 months to a year, your body adjust and
| > adapts to that pressure and oxygen levels, you then can
| > climb or fly higher. If you return to sea level you may
be
| > "super charged" or even get sick for a short while until
you
| > readapt.
| >
| > In the 1940 and 50s, I understand it took many moths for
| > Everest climbers to portage several higher and higher
base
| > camps, before the actual assault on the top.
| >
| >
| > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
message
| >
ink.net...
| > |
| > | "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
| > |
| >
ups.com...
| > | >> I managed five landings without rolling past the
| > numbers with calm air
| > | >> the
| > | >> other day. Making really short AND smooth landings
AND
| > hitting the exact
| > | >> aimpoint has proved elusive. I can usually
accomplish
| > any two but not
| > | >> all
| > | >> three. It gives me additional respect for the
pilots
| > demoing Helios at
| > | >> OSH.
| > | >
| > | > I can't imagine what flying something like that must
be
| > like. Very
| > | > challenging, it sounds like!
| > | >
| > |
| > | It is always difficult to get every bit of performance
out
| > of an aircraft.
| > | Usually we make it easier by using approach speeds
that
| > are high and settle
| > | onto the runway. To put it down on the first foot of
| > pavement at the
| > | absolute minimium speed is a challenge in anything.
| > |
| > |
| > | >
| > | >> I was
| > | >> climbing in the Andes early in the year and then
made
| > an attempt on the
| > | >> North side of Everest in the spring. I reached
25,000'
| > without O2 and
| > | >> then
| > | >> bailed for a variety of reasons.
| > | >
| > | > Um, isn't life pretty much unsustainable at that
| > altitude without
| > | > oxygen?
| > |
| > | Depends on what you consider unsustainable. The
highest
| > permanant
| > | settlement is about 18,000'. Personally I felt that I
was
| > constantly
| > | deteriorating above 21,000'.
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because I operate out of KSNA, that's an interesting bit of (old) news
> to me. I can't put my hands on an old chart at the moment. Can you
> tell me how the MCAS El Toro Class D airspace was structured if it
> didn't reach the surface?
>

I could, but since I can put my hands on old charts I'll just scan the
portion of the Los Angeles sectional from 1987 and 1997 showing El Toro and
post them in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I could, but since I can put my hands on old charts I'll just scan the
> portion of the Los Angeles sectional from 1987 and 1997 showing El Toro and
> post them in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation.

You have old charts? Do you perchance have the SF sectional from around
1980?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> You have old charts?

Many.


>
> Do you perchance have the SF sectional from around 1980?
>

I have San Francisco sectionals from 1987, 1965, 1958, 1947, and 1943.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Do you perchance have the SF sectional from around 1980?
> I have San Francisco sectionals from 1987, 1965, 1958, 1947, and 1943.

If it's convenient for you, I wouldn't mind a scan of the area (1987 and
1965) south of Salinas. In 1981 flew into an airport there (which no
longer exists) with the unique name of "Skypark airport", and was
wondering exactly where it was situated. Alas, I did not save the chart.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> If it's convenient for you, I wouldn't mind a scan of the area (1987 and
> 1965) south of Salinas. In 1981 flew into an airport there (which no
> longer exists) with the unique name of "Skypark airport", and was
> wondering exactly where it was situated. Alas, I did not save the chart.
>

I could do it, but I don't think that's where the airport you remember was
located.

Prior to circa 1968 when the new series began sectional charts were printed
on just one side. Until around 1950 the reverse was just blank, but about
that time aeronautical data began being put on the back. The data included
aerodromes that appeared on the front of the chart. There is a "Skypark"
listed on the back of the 1965 sectional, the coordinates are 37 03-122 02,
which puts it about four miles north of Santa Cruz. I can scan that area
for you, but you'll find much more information here:

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_Monterey.html#santacruz

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>>>Do you perchance have the SF sectional from around 1980?
>> I have San Francisco sectionals from 1987, 1965, 1958, 1947, and 1943.
>
> If it's convenient for you, I wouldn't mind a scan of the area (1987 and
> 1965) south of Salinas. In 1981 flew into an airport there (which no
> longer exists) with the unique name of "Skypark airport", and was
> wondering exactly where it was situated. Alas, I did not save the chart.
>
> Jose


Jose,

Have you seen this website?

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/index.htm

Didn't see a Skypark Airport but I only skimmed the CA entries...with a
little digging you might find it on this site.

Jay B

[Jim Macklin]

http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-05,GGLG:en&q=n37%2003%20w122%2002&sa=N&tab=wl

looks like the remains of an airport.




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
nk.net...
|
| "Jose" > wrote in message
| . net...
| >
| > If it's convenient for you, I wouldn't mind a scan of
the area (1987 and
| > 1965) south of Salinas. In 1981 flew into an airport
there (which no
| > longer exists) with the unique name of "Skypark
airport", and was
| > wondering exactly where it was situated. Alas, I did
not save the chart.
| >
|
| I could do it, but I don't think that's where the airport
you remember was
| located.
|
| Prior to circa 1968 when the new series began sectional
charts were printed
| on just one side. Until around 1950 the reverse was just
blank, but about
| that time aeronautical data began being put on the back.
The data included
| aerodromes that appeared on the front of the chart. There
is a "Skypark"
| listed on the back of the 1965 sectional, the coordinates
are 37 03-122 02,
| which puts it about four miles north of Santa Cruz. I can
scan that area
| for you, but you'll find much more information here:
|
|
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_Monterey.html#santacruz
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:qUDLg.7093$SZ3.2345@dukeread04...
>
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-05,GGLG:en&q=n37%2003%20w122%2002&sa=N&tab=wl
>
> looks like the remains of an airport.
>

Did you examine the map view? To the west of the old runway are "Skypark
Drive", "Piper Cub Court", "Navigator Drive", and "Aviator Court".

[Jose[_1_]]

> There is a "Skypark"
> listed on the back of the 1965 sectional, the coordinates are 37 03-122 02,
> which puts it about four miles north of Santa Cruz. I can scan that area
> for you, but you'll find much more information here:
>
> http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_Monterey.html#santacruz

Thanks. No scan necessary, I think that was it. I remember landing and
taking off to the northwest (dropping off a passenger and chatting a
while). It was windy and the landing was exciting (but a greaser), and
on departure one of the old timers told me to be careful of sink off the
departure end, but that it would go away as I kept going. Sure enough,
we took off, got about a hundred or two feet in the air, and the terrain
dropped below us. We went down, but kept going, and went back up again,
for an uneventful takeoff. It was nice to be ready for it.

When we landed again at Oakland, ATC wanted to know where we were... we
had a flight plan open, and didn't think to amend it to account for the
extra hour chatting on the field. tsk tsk.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

Would you be willing to sell the 1943? That was the year I was born and I
have an original of the Grass Valley newspaper for the date of my birth and
a pocket piece 1943 half-dollar that I've had since my gramma gave it to me
for my tenth birthday -- and a few magazines (Life, Good Housekeeping, and a
few more). I've never been able to find a sectional from that year.

If you don't want to sell it, can you recommend a good source for old
sectionals?

Jim



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> You have old charts?
>
> Many.
>
>
>>
>> Do you perchance have the SF sectional from around 1980?
>>
>
> I have San Francisco sectionals from 1987, 1965, 1958, 1947, and 1943.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would you be willing to sell the 1943? That was the year I was born and I
> have an original of the Grass Valley newspaper for the date of my birth
> and a pocket piece 1943 half-dollar that I've had since my gramma gave it
> to me for my tenth birthday -- and a few magazines (Life, Good
> Housekeeping, and a few more). I've never been able to find a sectional
> from that year.
>
> If you don't want to sell it, can you recommend a good source for old
> sectionals?
>

Sorry, I'm not interested in selling it. If you hurled a high enough figure
my way that could change, but I doubt you'd go high enough. I recommend
eBay. Set up an account, save a search of "San Francisco Sectional" in your
favorites and select email notification.

[Jim Macklin]

I just looked at the photo, another mall .


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
link.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:qUDLg.7093$SZ3.2345@dukeread04...
| >
| >
| >
http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-05,GGLG:en&q=n37%2003%20w122%2002&sa=N&tab=wl
| >
| > looks like the remains of an airport.
| >
|
| Did you examine the map view? To the west of the old
runway are "Skypark
| Drive", "Piper Cub Court", "Navigator Drive", and "Aviator
Court".
|
|

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:17:40 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Because I operate out of KSNA, that's an interesting bit of (old) news
>> to me. I can't put my hands on an old chart at the moment. Can you
>> tell me how the MCAS El Toro Class D airspace was structured if it
>> didn't reach the surface?
>>
>
>I could, but since I can put my hands on old charts I'll just scan the
>portion of the Los Angeles sectional from 1987 and 1997 showing El Toro and
>post them in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation.
>


Many thanks.

Because of the clutter and close proximity of the three airports, this
is not an easy chart to read. I presume the thick, blue, slashed,
concentric circles centered on El Toro depict the Class C airspace,
and the thinner blue dashed 'keyhole' shaped circle centered on El
Toro depicts its Control Zone much the same as Class D airspace is
currently depicted on current charts. The wedge shaped area south of
El Toro refereed to in the Special Notice, doesn't appear to be
depicted as Class D nor part of the CZ, as it isn't bounded by the
typical Class D boundary depiction. However, it is effectively Class
D, as it is necessary to contact ATC (the tower?) to operate within
it.

So when you said:

El Toro MCAS used to have Class D airspace adjacent to the Class C
airspace that didn't even reach the surface.

was it the Special Notice airspace to which you were referring?

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Well, if it was three feet off the centerline while the mains were
> equidistant from it because he was crabbed into a nonexistent crosswind...

Not quite... The aircraft was straightened out before touchdown... I was
just 3 ft off the side of it... At least according to him... An argument
could e made that each of our angles of view were offset from the actual
centerline of the aircraft, so perhaps it only looked like I was 3 ft off...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Would you be willing to sell the 1943? That was the year I was born and I
> have an original of the Grass Valley newspaper for the date of my birth
and
> a pocket piece 1943 half-dollar that I've had since my gramma gave it to
me
> for my tenth birthday -- and a few magazines (Life, Good Housekeeping, and
a
> few more). I've never been able to find a sectional from that year.

So, I suspect that you also have a 1943 steel penny in your collection,
right? How about a 1943 *copper* penny?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Because of the clutter and close proximity of the three airports, this
> is not an easy chart to read. I presume the thick, blue, slashed,
> concentric circles centered on El Toro depict the Class C airspace,
> and the thinner blue dashed 'keyhole' shaped circle centered on El
> Toro depicts its Control Zone much the same as Class D airspace is
> currently depicted on current charts. The wedge shaped area south of
> El Toro refereed to in the Special Notice, doesn't appear to be
> depicted as Class D nor part of the CZ, as it isn't bounded by the
> typical Class D boundary depiction. However, it is effectively Class
> D, as it is necessary to contact ATC (the tower?) to operate within
> it.
>
> So when you said:
>
> El Toro MCAS used to have Class D airspace adjacent to the Class C
> airspace that didn't even reach the surface.
>
> was it the Special Notice airspace to which you were referring?
>

Did you download both charts? They were uploaded separately due to their
size.

Airspace reclassification happened in 1993. The 1987 chart depicts the El
Toro ARSA which became the El Toro Class C and is depicted on the 1997
chart. The area of concern is south of the MCAS, it overlies Dana Point and
extends to the north to abut and underlie the El Toro ARSA/Class C. On the
1987 chart it is designated "MCAS El Toro Special Air Traffic Rules", see
the bold blue arrow at the bottom left of the image. On the 1997 chart it
is designated Class D airspace, see the not quite as bold blue arrow in a
similar position.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:24:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>Did you download both charts? They were uploaded separately due to their
>size.

Yes. But I just looked at the older one. Sorry.

>Airspace reclassification happened in 1993. The 1987 chart depicts the El
>Toro ARSA which became the El Toro Class C and is depicted on the 1997
>chart. The area of concern is south of the MCAS, it overlies Dana Point and
>extends to the north to abut and underlie the El Toro ARSA/Class C. On the
>1987 chart it is designated "MCAS El Toro Special Air Traffic Rules", see
>the bold blue arrow at the bottom left of the image. On the 1997 chart it
>is designated Class D airspace, see the not quite as bold blue arrow in a
>similar position.

You are absolutely correct.

Thank you for all the effort.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 08:29:37 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>
>"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>>> left is standard.. right traffic is on the chart with annotations for the
>>> airport along with the airport elevation, lighting, runway length and
>>> frequency.. as in
>>> JEAN (0L7)
>>> 2832 *L 46 122.9
>>> RP 2R 20R
>>> or
>>> Sky Ranch (3L2)
>>> 2599 - 33 123.0
>>> RP 12
>>
>> Interesting. I have never seen it.
>
>Does that mean you never go into an airport with a designated right had
>traffic pattern?
>Or does that mean that you never look at your charts?

Charts? You carry charts?

Out of 60 pilots at proficiency training only one had up-to-date
sectionals. Many didn't have any and these are people flying expensive
singles and twins for the most part.

A couple years back, maybe 3 or 4, I was coming into the local airport
from the north to join down wind for 06. Just about the time I
announced I was turning down wind for 06 so did another plane. This
really gets your attention and no matter what attitude I put the plane
in I could not see him and I was checking both sides of the runway. I
asked "where are you" several times and he dutifully replied, "down
wind for 06" and began to sound a bit peeved by the third time I
asked. I was on base before I finally found him. He had been on an
up wind (why I don't know) and no more than a short city block from
the runway. He did a U-turn around the departure end of 06 and flew
down wind no more than a hundred yards from the runway. He might
have been as high as 200 feet. Maybe 300 over the houses and fair
grounds. (I hadn't been looking that low and he was pretty well
camouflaged against the back ground) I was coming down final when he
made a sudden U-turn from down wind to final right in front of me.
Good thing the Deb is predictable as slow speed.

In the time I could do a 360, and get back on final he'd picked up a
passenger, pulled out in front of me *again* and departed. At least
the second time I didn't have to go around although giving chase did
cross my mine. <:-)) Several other options also crossed my mind, but
I dismissed them all as I wanted to keep my ticket.

Just call the guy from the FAA an idiot and please let the rest of us
know where you are in the pattern.

IFR? IFR = I follow Roads.
>
>just kidding..
>BT

You only thought you were. <:-))



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

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> ADS is pretty damn friendly, and the busyness keeps away a lot of idiots.

I was based out of HOU for awhile... Considering it is a large Class-B
airport and Southwest and Continental flies out of there quite a few flights
each day, it is *very* GA-friendly... Very seldom did I ever end up with the
taxi-from-hell to the end of 22... Usually a midfield departure from 12R...
If it wasn't too busy, I could just call up the tower directly while right
outside the Class-B inner circle instead of contacting Houston-Approach...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> I've just had bad experiences at uncontrolled fields. Might be a
> Indiana thing, but they sure seem to attract a lot of idiots.

You're saying that Indiana attracts a lot of idiots? Yeah, you're probably
right... <snicker>

[Montblack[_1_]]

("RST Engineering" wrote)
> Would you be willing to sell the 1943? That was the year I was born and I
> have an original of the Grass Valley newspaper for the date of my birth
> and a pocket piece 1943 half-dollar that I've had since my gramma gave it
> to me for my tenth birthday -- and a few magazines (Life, Good
> Housekeeping, and a few more). I've never been able to find a sectional
> from that year.


http://www.filmsite.org/oscars40.html
1943 Casablanca


Montblack
http://www.filmsite.org/aa60.html
1960 - I was rooting for Elmer Gantry but got The Apartment. Why do I feel
like a drink?