Useless radio transmissions

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

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

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students
this stuff?!!! 8^)

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

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

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

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

Bela P. Havasreti

With a repost to r.a.student.

"BPH" == Bela P Havasreti writes:

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

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

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

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

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

BPH Bela P. Havasreti

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



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






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

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



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

That's not logic at all.

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

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



Bob Fry wrote:
With a repost to r.a.student.

"BPH" == Bela P Havasreti writes:

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

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

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

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

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

BPH Bela P. Havasreti

Bob Fry wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allen

A Lieberma wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

--
Peter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bela P. Havasreti


"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students
this stuff?!!! 8^)

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

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

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

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

Bela P. Havasreti

Bela,

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


Oh, I'll help:

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


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:09:42 GMT, "soxinbox" wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Bela P. Havasreti


"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students
this stuff?!!! 8^)

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

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

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

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

Bela P. Havasreti