No more "Left Downwind"?

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"

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

"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.

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")

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

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"

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

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.

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.

"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.

"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...