Bothering a Pilot on Final

wrote:
On May 29, 10:57 am, Dale wrote:


Here's one of them:http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghmidfinal.jpg

1. Where's that?
2. I'm jealous.
3. Can I live near there?

He presumably is in Alaska, and the photo was taken near Knik Glacier.
Found that out by truncating the URL down to what looked like a user home
directory and poking about:

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/

I'm jealous too. ;-)
Alaska is a great place to visit - not sure I'd want to live there. ;-)
Okay, Anchorage or somewhere along the coast wouldn't be so bad.

On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
pilots are saying on the radio.

Respectfully, CJ,

That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
booted out of my cockpit.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.

You know, I listen to what other pilots have to say on the radio. I
simply do not have time to criticize what they say or grade them on
their performance. Guys like Larry are one reason that student pilots
are afraid of using the radio. They are terrified of offending some
radio nanny who is going to stomp all over them for saying "please
advise," a phrase that they may hear all the time from professional
pilots. I have heard a pilot ream a student over the air on the tower
frequency for a solid ten minutes because he thought the student was
stumbling on his transmissions too much. How is that for misusing the
radio?

It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
news groups like this.

Limiting your communication to simply announcing your position is
stupid and dangerous. There is absolutely no reason not to be clear in
who is going to be landing first, for example. If there is any doubt
about another pilot's intentions you should be free to ask rather than
be silent for fear of 'misusing' the radio. Similarly, I think it is
better to say "I don't see you" instead of keeping silent and hitting
someone mid-air.

I swear, there seem to be an awful lot of idiots around here who are
determined to be 'right,' even if it kills them. People who are so
fanatical about not breaking some imagined rule prohibiting air-to-air
communication that they are willing to die to prove a point are, IMHO,
psychologically unfit to be pilots.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2008-05-28 21:42:04 -0700, "Jay Honeck" said:

I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the field
at 4500 feet, heading West..."

I hadn't heard that until I started listening to the Fairmont CTAF. What's
the point?

I confess to making that announcement a couple of times, when I was a
newly-minted private pilot, as I passed over my home field. I think
the guys doing it are just so damned proud of their accomplishment that
they want their buds -- or anyone else listening -- to know that
they're "up there"...

It's really just silly.

You know, I have heard flight examiners do this. I have even heard them
criticize instructors for not teaching students to do this. You think
they are doing it because they are "silly" or "proud of their
accomplishment?"

Think again.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In article ,
Clark wrote:

You sound like one of the as -- er persons who manage to fly through a
skydiving operation endangering not only the jumpers lives but the lives
of their passengers.



Hmmmm. At the local skydiver airfield the jump pilot makes a clear
announcement. The correct response is to continue with t-n-g's and let the
poor dumb *******s who jumped from a perfectly good aircraft fend for
themselves.

It took a couple of times before the correct response was firmly embedded for
me. Now that I've imbibed the kool-aid I understand fully that it's the only
way to deal with these folks and continue to have access to that airfield.
Frankly, I do understand that sanity is entirely optional and jumping into
nothingness is a choice. Just don't get in my way while you're doing it.

In article
,
wrote:

On May 29, 10:57 am, Dale wrote:


Here's one of them:http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghmidfinal.jpg

1. Where's that?
2. I'm jealous.
3. Can I live near there?

sigh...

As far as I know it's called "Grasshopper". It's along the north side
of the Knik glacier near Palmer, AK.

On May 29, 11:27 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
pilots are saying on the radio.

Respectfully, CJ,

That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
booted out of my cockpit.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.

Obsessing is a harsh word, consider the communications
foul-up that killed 500 people,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerif...understandings

Personally, I think most pilots formulate what
they are going to say prior to keying the mike,
to provide controller with who I am, position and
intent, clearly and briefly, and of course other
pilots hear that brief to.
I've never heard excessive chatter, tho I got a
little close to a fella flying NORDO, who flew
under me while I was on final, so I aborted and
did another circuit.
....
It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
news groups like this.

Radio work is quite easy, just go talk to the local
controller and he'll brief you, he's the pro.
Ken

On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:49 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008052923274916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
pilots are saying on the radio.

Respectfully, CJ,

That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
booted out of my cockpit.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.


My statement was that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
position and intentions. Please provide the rationale that leads you
to believe that that equates to "obsessing about whether another pilot
is misusing the radio."

You know, I listen to what other pilots have to say on the radio. I
simply do not have time to criticize what they say or grade them on
their performance. Guys like Larry are one reason that student pilots
are afraid of using the radio. They are terrified of offending some
radio nanny who is going to stomp all over them for saying "please
advise," a phrase that they may hear all the time from professional
pilots.

Because I stated that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
position and intentions, I would like to know how you managed to infer
that I might "stomp all over them." Your conclusion makes no sense to
me, and reflects you lack of logic in teaching your students to
disregard regulations.

I have heard a pilot ream a student over the air on the tower
frequency for a solid ten minutes because he thought the student was
stumbling on his transmissions too much. How is that for misusing the
radio?


I hope you're not trying to imply that I might do such a thing, or
that such a transmission is permitted by FAA regulations. The pilot
who did it should be referred to a FSDO inspector, and if I were the
student who was the subject of his abuse, that is exactly what I'd do.

It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
news groups like this.

If you are experiencing difficulty instructing your students in the
proper use of radio communications as a result of the discussion that
takes place in this newsgroup, your instruction technique need work.
The source of your difficulty may be your choice to instruct your
students to deviate from federal regulations, but such a conclusion is
unlikely, as it would require YOU to take responsibility for YOUR
PROBLEM instead of ridiculously blaming the newsgroup.


Limiting your communication to simply announcing your position is
stupid and dangerous.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion. My opinion is compliant
with FAA guidelines, yours is not. Perhaps you'd care to explain why
your instruction is contrary to FAA recommendations, and what leads
you to believe that compliance with FARs is stupid and dangerous?

There is absolutely no reason not to be clear in
who is going to be landing first, for example.

While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft
participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system
at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it
being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars, AIM nor
being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such
negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080515_wz_roanokecrash.103382c61.html,
the mishap may not have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the
logic of that point of view in this mishap? Can you appreciate, that
deviating from FARs causes a safety hazard? 91.113 dictates that the
pilot farther along toward the runway threshold on final approach will
be landing first unless some arrogant know-it-all decides to deviate
from federal regulations.

Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the
airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator
has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override
those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than
91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that
authority to deviate from federal regulations?

If there is any doubt about another pilot's intentions you should be
free to ask rather than be silent for fear of 'misusing' the radio.

Why would there be any doubt? The right-of-way is established in FAR
91.113. Only those pilots who deviate from it create doubt. If ALL
comply with 91.113, the FAA believes that pattern operations will be
orderly and safe, or it seems to me they would have mentioned
negotiating deviations from regulations as being appropriate in their
literature and regulations.

Similarly, I think it is better to say "I don't see you" instead of
keeping silent and hitting someone mid-air.

What leads you to believe that saying "I don't see you" prevents MACs.
I beg you; please do attempt enlighten me on this subject.


I swear, there seem to be an awful lot of idiots around here who are
determined to be 'right,' even if it kills them. People who are so
fanatical about not breaking some imagined rule prohibiting air-to-air
communication that they are willing to die to prove a point are, IMHO,
psychologically unfit to be pilots.

Actually, I think it is those pilots who believe they know better than
the FAA, and deviate from FAA guidelines, or fail to appreciate the
wisdom inherent in the FARs who are operationally unfit to be pilots.

In the accident cited above, the Stinson pilot attempted to deviate
from 91.113(g). That attempt to deviate from FAA regulations resulted
in his attempting to takeoff while another aircraft was on final
approach. If he had complied with 91.113(g), and waited for the
landing traffic, it would not have landed on top of him. Even you, in
your current mental state should be capable of seeing the fundamental
truth in that, hopefully.

On Thu, 29 May 2008 05:01:37 -0700, Shirl
wrote:

round here,
lots of people fly close to pattern altitude. If I'm in the pattern, I
appreciate knowing what they're staying or continuing on vs. having to
guess.

I agree. I use a handheld in a J-3 Cub, and ignition noise makes it
impractical for me to broadcast. So the more talk there is, the safer
I feel.

4500 feet is a bit of a stretch, however. The only time I ever flew at
4500 feet was when I was surfing through the White Mountains.

But I really like to know if somebody is flying around my airport at
2000 or even 2500 feet.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

On May 30, 3:01 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:49 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008052923274916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:



On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
pilots are saying on the radio.

Respectfully, CJ,

That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
booted out of my cockpit.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.

My statement was that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
position and intentions. Please provide the rationale that leads you
to believe that that equates to "obsessing about whether another pilot
is misusing the radio."

You know, I listen to what other pilots have to say on the radio. I
simply do not have time to criticize what they say or grade them on
their performance. Guys like Larry are one reason that student pilots
are afraid of using the radio. They are terrified of offending some
radio nanny who is going to stomp all over them for saying "please
advise," a phrase that they may hear all the time from professional
pilots.

Because I stated that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
position and intentions, I would like to know how you managed to infer
that I might "stomp all over them." Your conclusion makes no sense to
me, and reflects you lack of logic in teaching your students to
disregard regulations.

I have heard a pilot ream a student over the air on the tower
frequency for a solid ten minutes because he thought the student was
stumbling on his transmissions too much. How is that for misusing the
radio?

I hope you're not trying to imply that I might do such a thing, or
that such a transmission is permitted by FAA regulations. The pilot
who did it should be referred to a FSDO inspector, and if I were the
student who was the subject of his abuse, that is exactly what I'd do.

It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
news groups like this.

If you are experiencing difficulty instructing your students in the
proper use of radio communications as a result of the discussion that
takes place in this newsgroup, your instruction technique need work.
The source of your difficulty may be your choice to instruct your
students to deviate from federal regulations, but such a conclusion is
unlikely, as it would require YOU to take responsibility for YOUR
PROBLEM instead of ridiculously blaming the newsgroup.



Limiting your communication to simply announcing your position is
stupid and dangerous.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion. My opinion is compliant
with FAA guidelines, yours is not. Perhaps you'd care to explain why
your instruction is contrary to FAA recommendations, and what leads
you to believe that compliance with FARs is stupid and dangerous?

There is absolutely no reason not to be clear in
who is going to be landing first, for example.

While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft
participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system
at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it
being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars, AIM nor
being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such
negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080...,
the mishap may not have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the
logic of that point of view in this mishap? Can you appreciate, that
deviating from FARs causes a safety hazard? 91.113 dictates that the
pilot farther along toward the runway threshold on final approach will
be landing first unless some arrogant know-it-all decides to deviate
from federal regulations.

Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the
airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator
has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override
those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than
91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that
authority to deviate from federal regulations?

If there is any doubt about another pilot's intentions you should be
free to ask rather than be silent for fear of 'misusing' the radio.

Why would there be any doubt? The right-of-way is established in FAR
91.113. Only those pilots who deviate from it create doubt. If ALL
comply with 91.113, the FAA believes that pattern operations will be
orderly and safe, or it seems to me they would have mentioned
negotiating deviations from regulations as being appropriate in their
literature and regulations.

Similarly, I think it is better to say "I don't see you" instead of
keeping silent and hitting someone mid-air.

What leads you to believe that saying "I don't see you" prevents MACs.
I beg you; please do attempt enlighten me on this subject.



I swear, there seem to be an awful lot of idiots around here who are
determined to be 'right,' even if it kills them. People who are so
fanatical about not breaking some imagined rule prohibiting air-to-air
communication that they are willing to die to prove a point are, IMHO,
psychologically unfit to be pilots.

Actually, I think it is those pilots who believe they know better than
the FAA, and deviate from FAA guidelines, or fail to appreciate the
wisdom inherent in the FARs who are operationally unfit to be pilots.

In the accident cited above, the Stinson pilot attempted to deviate
from 91.113(g). That attempt to deviate from FAA regulations resulted
in his attempting to takeoff while another aircraft was on final
approach. If he had complied with 91.113(g), and waited for the
landing traffic, it would not have landed on top of him. Even you, in
your current mental state should be capable of seeing the fundamental
truth in that, hopefully.
Agreed Larry
Maybe I got lucky, but in my ground school
a controller came in and did a 1 hour lecture
and removed all ambiguity on radio com.
He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
needed to know, succintly.
Made complete common sense to me.
Ken

On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:48:09 -0400, Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT
net wrote in :

I use a handheld in a J-3 Cub, and ignition noise makes it
impractical for me to broadcast.

I wasn't aware that ignition noise affected radio broadcast
transmissions. I'm familiar with radio RECEPTION being compromised by
the broad spectrum of electromagnetic waves resulting from an
electrical spark, but not radio transmission.