non-towered airport question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Sydney

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

When would collision avoidance *not* be more important?

Hi Cub,

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

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

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

Cheers,
Sydney

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yipers!
Sydney

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

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

--
Jim Fisher

In article , Snowbird
wrote:

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

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

Balanced field length applies to jets.

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

Bob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney

(Snowbird) wrote in message . com...
What's the general viewpoint here?

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

Cheers,
Sydney

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

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

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

g_a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Sydney

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


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

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

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

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