Is ATITAPA EVER appropriate?

nddons

nddons

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
13,304
Location
Waukesha County, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Stan
My CFII and I were doing some IR training tonight. We were maneuvering to enter the ILS 10 at Waukesha (KUES) shortly before the tower closed at 2100 local. Tower advised us that Milwaukee advised him that a Lear jet was inbound from the east and would be in the area in 10 minutes, after the tower closed. We shot the approach, went missed, and proceeded on a heading to the BAE VOR (5nm NE of UES).

After departing the airport on our missed approach, and when we were about 2-3nm from the airport, we heard the Lear pilot announce his position and distance to the airport, and then ask "any traffic in the area please advise." As we looked toward the east (well, my CFII looked, as I was under the hood) we could see the Lear's landing light in the distance, at a higher altitude. Our course was taking us away from the Lear and the pattern, and we were climbing to 2,800 ft. Pattern altitude is 1,900 ft.

Still, in my opinion, such a request aided in both his situational awareness as well as our own. We knew the Lear was approaching the terminal area, and took the opportunity to tell him where we were, and that we would hang around the BAE VOR to the north and give way to him on his approach to the airport. He knew our position (not in the pattern, but maneuvering near the terminal area) as well as our intentions.

The Lear pilot then made all the appropriate announcements for the left downwind, base, and final for RWY 10.

I will stipulate that ATITAPA is not standard terminology and not in the pilot's glossary. However, I thought that this seemed like an appropriate use of the term by the Lear pilot, and we both benefitted from the increased situational awareness. Where am I wrong?
 
All he had to do was announce his position. If you were a problem you would then announce yours. No reason to say please advise, traffic will advise.
 
nddons said:
We knew the Lear was approaching the terminal area, and took the opportunity to tell him where we were, and that we would hang around the BAE VOR to the north and give way to him on his approach to the airport. He knew our position (not in the pattern, but maneuvering near the terminal area) as well as our intentions.
Click to expand...

Had the Lear pilot announced his position without the ATITPPA you would have learned just as much and could have made the same transmission that you did.

I will stipulate that ATITAPA is not standard terminology and not in the pilot's glossary. However, I thought that this seemed like an appropriate use of the term by the Lear pilot, and we both benefitted from the increased situational awareness. Where am I wrong?
Click to expand...
As already stated, when he announced his position and intentions he had already communicated what was needed. And it really works much better when the only pilots who respond to another pilot's calls on the CTAF are the ones who may be in conflict with the initial caller. In your case I think your reply was appropriate since there would have been a conflict if the Lear aborted the approach and flew the missed procedure but I don't see how the "forbidden phrase" itself improved anything. And if the ATITPPA call was responded to as requested (e.g. by any traffic in the area) there would be nothing but squealing on the radio when multiple pilots tried to transmit at the same time.
 
Last edited:
If there are three, four, or five aircraft "in the area", who clicks their mike first to reply? By asking ATITAPA, you're almost guaranteeing a "step on each other" reply that will only increase frequency congestion.

Jesse's reply is spot on... just announce where you are. The other traffic will do the same, conflicting traffic to your announcement will likely broadcast first, to resolve any perceived conflict. As you hear other traffic make their calls, you can develop a picture of the other traffic in the area...
 
There is one, and only one, case where ATITAPA is appropriate:

"Attention all aircraft, local time is now 6 AM and Timmerman Tower is open for operation. Any traffic in the area, please advise."

There is no time where ATITAPA is appropriate for pilots.
 
nddons said:
My CFII and I were doing some IR training tonight. We were maneuvering to enter the ILS 10 at Waukesha (KUES) shortly before the tower closed at 2100 local. Tower advised us that Milwaukee advised him that a Lear jet was inbound from the east and would be in the area in 10 minutes, after the tower closed. We shot the approach, went missed, and proceeded on a heading to the BAE VOR (5nm NE of UES).

After departing the airport on our missed approach, and when we were about 2-3nm from the airport, we heard the Lear pilot announce his position and distance to the airport, and then ask "any traffic in the area please advise." As we looked toward the east (well, my CFII looked, as I was under the hood) we could see the Lear's landing light in the distance, at a higher altitude. Our course was taking us away from the Lear and the pattern, and we were climbing to 2,800 ft. Pattern altitude is 1,900 ft.

Still, in my opinion, such a request aided in both his situational awareness as well as our own. We knew the Lear was approaching the terminal area, and took the opportunity to tell him where we were, and that we would hang around the BAE VOR to the north and give way to him on his approach to the airport. He knew our position (not in the pattern, but maneuvering near the terminal area) as well as our intentions.

The Lear pilot then made all the appropriate announcements for the left downwind, base, and final for RWY 10.
Click to expand...
If he hadn't used that phrase, would you have not still announced your position? How did it help?

nddons said:
I will stipulate that ATITAPA is not standard terminology and not in the pilot's glossary. However, I thought that this seemed like an appropriate use of the term by the Lear pilot, and we both benefitted from the increased situational awareness. Where am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Not only is it not in the pilot's glossary, it specifically says in the AIM not to use it.

The short answer is "no". I've never seen (or heard of) a situation where it makes sense for a pilot to use this phrase. You aren't going to drag information out of pilots that wouldn't have given it to you anyway.
 
gismo said:
Had the Lear pilot announced his position without the ATITPPA you would have learned just as much and could have made the same transmission that you did.

As already stated, when he announced his position and intentions he had already communicated what was needed. And it really works much better when the only pilots who respond to another pilot's calls on the CTAF are the ones who may be in conflict with the initial caller. In your case I think your reply was appropriate since there would have been a conflict if the Lear aborted the approach and flew the missed procedure but I don't see how the "forbidden phrase" itself improved anything. And if the ATITPPA call was responded to as requested (e.g. by any traffic in the area) there would be nothing but squealing on the radio when multiple pilots tried to transmit at the same time.
Click to expand...

Good points. My thought process is that since we were leaving the terminal area, but were still in the neighborhood positioning ourselves for another approach, he would not have known our intentions, nor would we necessarily have been compelled to make as detailed a position report on the CTAF.
 
nddons said:
Good points. My thought process is that since we were leaving the terminal area, but were still in the neighborhood positioning ourselves for another approach, he would not have known our intentions, nor would we necessarily have been compelled to make as detailed a position report on the CTAF.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you would have either not announced your position and intentions, or given a less detailed announcement, if he had not said ATITAPA? If so, why?
 
Last edited:
If you were mute as to where you were, then it's your fault he didn't know you were there. If you were headed to the missed, a simple announcement "Waukesha traffic, bugsmasher 123a, missed approach, ILS 10, Waukesha traffic". If you were departing the area for the VOR, ".... direct BAE...".
Anything nonstandard clutters the airwaves. This includes a chat about who is buying the drinks when you get on the ground.
 
silver-eagle said:
If you were mute as to where you were, then it's your fault he didn't know you were there. If you were headed to the missed, a simple announcement "Waukesha traffic, bugsmasher 123a, missed approach, ILS 10, Waukesha traffic".
Click to expand...
One pet peeve: that last should be "Waukesha", not "Waukesha traffic". It's the airport you're operating at. See AIM 4-1-9(g)(6).
 
jmaynard said:
One pet peeve: that last should be "Waukesha", not "Waukesha traffic". It's the airport you're operating at. See AIM 4-1-9(g)(6).
Click to expand...

That one caught my eye as well. As with any transmission, you start it by stating who you're talking to and who you are. That's why the first one is "Waukesha traffic". You're talking to the unknown traffic of Waukesha. You're ending your transmission by restating where you're doing whatever it is that you just announced.
 
While in general I agree with the rule of not using ATITAPA, I do think that there are times it might be useful. In tis case, the jet coming in was losing the tower as a source of info about who was in the area. While the other traffic may respond with thier location if they feel they are in conflict, this keep the jet pilot from knowing what's going on. I know that personally I like to have a mental picture of traffic in the area rather then depending on the other traffic to decide if they are a factor to me. I get that information from listening to the other calls but if I came in to a area that had a tower working then they stopped, I would not always have the ability to find out about that other traffic. It's a tough call but I do think that in the situation posted here I would not be too upset about a request for information.
 
jtheune said:
While in general I agree with the rule of not using ATITAPA, I do think that there are times it might be useful. In tis case, the jet coming in was losing the tower as a source of info about who was in the area. While the other traffic may respond with thier location if they feel they are in conflict, this keep the jet pilot from knowing what's going on. I know that personally I like to have a mental picture of traffic in the area rather then depending on the other traffic to decide if they are a factor to me. I get that information from listening to the other calls but if I came in to a area that had a tower working then they stopped, I would not always have the ability to find out about that other traffic. It's a tough call but I do think that in the situation posted here I would not be too upset about a request for information.
Click to expand...
How did the use of ATITAPA give the jet additional information that it would not have gotten by listening to the regular calls on the CTAF? Do you think that people are more willing to give a radio position report if they hear ATITAPA?
 
jtheune said:
While in general I agree with the rule of not using ATITAPA, I do think that there are times it might be useful. In tis case, the jet coming in was losing the tower as a source of info about who was in the area. While the other traffic may respond with thier location if they feel they are in conflict, this keep the jet pilot from knowing what's going on. I know that personally I like to have a mental picture of traffic in the area rather then depending on the other traffic to decide if they are a factor to me. I get that information from listening to the other calls but if I came in to a area that had a tower working then they stopped, I would not always have the ability to find out about that other traffic. It's a tough call but I do think that in the situation posted here I would not be too upset about a request for information.
Click to expand...

The thing is that just uttering the phrase doesn't make every pilot in the area automagically spew out accurate position reports to give you that mental picture. The ones that would have given you the information anyway (via a position report) will do it and anybody who doesn't think they'll conflict will ignore you. How does using ATITAPA change that?
 
Here's the scenario: The jet is coming in IFR and is taking to ATC. ATC would turn him over to tower who would tell him of trafffic in the area. But now the tower closes and the jet is turned loose. He switchs to CTAF. He could make a announcement of his position and listen for replies if the other traffic in the area thinks they are in conflict with him. But, 1: this takes time while the various traffic decides if they are in conflict and 2: If the traffic decides they are not in conflict and says nothing the jet will not know about them until they happen to make a annoucnemnt of the next turn or such. Now the jet driver is building a picture in his/her mind of what is going on in the area but it takes a while becuase the traffic may only report themselves as the reach turn points. As I said it's a tough call but in this and only this situation I don't know that I can fault him for wanting to develop a picture of the traffic now rather then later.
 
jtheune said:
Here's the scenario: The jet is coming in IFR and is taking to ATC. ATC would turn him over to tower who would tell him of trafffic in the area. But now the tower closes and the jet is turned loose. He switchs to CTAF. He could make a announcement of his position and listen for replies if the other traffic in the area thinks they are in conflict with him. But, 1: this takes time while the various traffic decides if they are in conflict and 2: If the traffic decides they are not in conflict and says nothing the jet will not know about them until they happen to make a annoucnemnt of the next turn or such. Now the jet driver is building a picture in his/her mind of what is going on in the area but it takes a while becuase the traffic may only report themselves as the reach turn points. As I said it's a tough call but in this and only this situation I don't know that I can fault him for wanting to develop a picture of the traffic now rather then later.
Click to expand...
Again I ask, how does the phrase ATITAPA magically make other planes give their position reports? Also are those position reports, if given, somehow more magically accurate if a pilot has used the phrase ATITAPA?
 
When the AIM (4-1-9) makes it a point to tell pilots that a phrase should not be used, that's good enough for me. It is particularly unsettling that the offending phrase was used by a jet pilot, who should be experienced enough to know better.

Bob Gardner
SAY AGAIN PLEASE
 
jtheune said:
Here's the scenario: The jet is coming in IFR and is taking to ATC. ATC would turn him over to tower who would tell him of trafffic in the area. But now the tower closes and the jet is turned loose. He switchs to CTAF. He could make a announcement of his position and listen for replies if the other traffic in the area thinks they are in conflict with him. But, 1: this takes time while the various traffic decides if they are in conflict and 2: If the traffic decides they are not in conflict and says nothing the jet will not know about them until they happen to make a annoucnemnt of the next turn or such. Now the jet driver is building a picture in his/her mind of what is going on in the area but it takes a while becuase the traffic may only report themselves as the reach turn points. As I said it's a tough call but in this and only this situation I don't know that I can fault him for wanting to develop a picture of the traffic now rather then later.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone's saying he doesn't need a picture of the traffic in the airport environment. However, ATITAPA won't help. I know that I'll announce my position and intentions, perceived conflict or not, just because I think he'll know better than I will where he'll be and when he'll get there, whenever someone new pops up on frequency - whether they ask or not.

ATITAPA wastes air time and elicits no new information. There's no such thing as a CTAF that isn't busy on anything resembling a reasonable flying day. Wasting air time is to be avoided. That's why the AIM says the phrase "should not be used under any condition".
 
bobmrg said:
When the AIM (4-1-9) makes it a point to tell pilots that a phrase should not be used, that's good enough for me. It is particularly unsettling that the offending phrase was used by a jet pilot, who should be experienced enough to know better.

Bob Gardner
SAY AGAIN PLEASE
Click to expand...

Honestly, the vast majority of the times that I've heard that phrase it was by corp jet and regional airline pilots.
 
bobmrg said:
When the AIM (4-1-9) makes it a point to tell pilots that a phrase should not be used, that's good enough for me. It is particularly unsettling that the offending phrase was used by a jet pilot, who should be experienced enough to know better.

Bob Gardner
SAY AGAIN PLEASE
Click to expand...

FlyNE said:
Honestly, the vast majority of the times that I've heard that phrase it was by corp jet and regional airline pilots.
Click to expand...
Me too.

Reaching deep and pulling answer out as to why the one thing that comes to mind is that corp and regional jet jokes may have been the products of aviation academies that seemed to teach that way. I say that with only one data point and that was a CFI who swore up an down that ATITAPA made for a "safer" flying experience.

When I hear it I do not respond. I will make my regular calls at the prescribed times. The only thing that ATITAPA makes happen in my mind is that I think the guy who used is a maroon and should be given a wide berth.
 
Palmpilot said:
Are you saying that you would have either not announced your position and intentions, or given a less detailed announcement, if he had not said ATITAPA? If so, why?
Click to expand...

We did announce something like "low approach, departing the pattern to the northwest" but did not say that we were going to be maneuvering over badger, etc. etc.

silver-eagle said:
If you were mute as to where you were, then it's your fault he didn't know you were there. If you were headed to the missed, a simple announcement "Waukesha traffic, bugsmasher 123a, missed approach, ILS 10, Waukesha traffic". If you were departing the area for the VOR, ".... direct BAE...".
Anything nonstandard clutters the airwaves. This includes a chat about who is buying the drinks when you get on the ground.
Click to expand...

This is not a fault issue, but an issue of increased situational awareness. He may have had situational awareness about us, but not necessarily anyone else in the terminal area (there was no one else at that time.)

As a side note, while "missed approach" would be appropriate to say, it may be meaningless to VFR traffic. I remember being frustrated being a student at Monroe, NC (KEQY), and having IR traffic shooting approaches and using instrument terminology and fixes not relevant or familiar to primary students departing and arriving at the airport on VFR days.
 
nddons said:
As a side note, while "missed approach" would be appropriate to say, it may be meaningless to VFR traffic. I remember being frustrated being a student at Monroe, NC (KEQY), and having IR traffic shooting approaches and using instrument terminology and fixes not relevant or familiar to primary students departing and arriving at the airport on VFR days.
Click to expand...
Legitimate concern.

When I shoot approaches on VMC days and am mixing it up with VFR traffic I will give a position report stating that I am on an approach and then a mileage and direction form the airport. Something like...'Galt traffic, Cherokee 8116B on the GPS Bravo for runway 27, east 5 miles straight in final, Galt' I still say that I am an approach as I have had on two occasions people tell me that "straight in approaches" are not allowed. Another can of worms based on false understandings of the FAR and AIM. Stating I am flying an approach seems to stop those types of ' FAA radio cops' from speaking up.
 
smigaldi said:
The only thing that ATITAPA makes happen in my mind is that I think the guy who used is a maroon and should be given a wide berth.
Click to expand...

So it does some good. I can say ATITAPA and everyone will think Im a maroon and get out of my way:rofl:

I have noticed that ANY call on the radio will get you responses. I monitor CTAF before I get to the airport just to see what happening. Some times I do not hear anything and after I make my first call and then someone will annouce they are in the patern. So no need for ATITAPA just your standard call will work.
 
smigaldi said:
Me too.
Click to expand...
Me three. I flew with a number of pilots who used it. I never used it but I never realized people got heartburn over it until I started reading message boards. Sometime after it changed in the AIM we got an e-mail asking us not to use it any more.

smigaldi said:
Reaching deep and pulling answer out as to why the one thing that comes to mind is that corp and regional jet jokes may have been the products of aviation academies that seemed to teach that way.
Click to expand...
My theory is that somewhere back in the 1980s regional pilots starting using that phrase and other pilots started copying it thinking it was a good idea. The reason the habit has continued is that a large proportion of pilots don't read internet message boards, and at least as far as regional and corporate pilots are concerned, they don't much if any recurrent training at uncontrolled fields either in real life or in the simulator. The only reason I would get checked at an uncontrolled field is if on my yearly line check we happened to go to one and that hasn't happened in years.

BTW, I think stubbornly refusing to give a position report just because you are annoyed at the phrase is as bad as using the phrase in the first place. The same goes for those who give some kind of sarcastic reply.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
BTW, I think stubbornly refusing to give a position report just because you are annoyed at the phrase is as bad as using the phrase in the first place.
Click to expand...
No one has claimed any such thing and I would agree with you. As I said I do not go out of my way to give an extra report. I would just give my usual report when it is appropriate. If I am already on downwind and had announced there is no reason to give an extra downwind report. I would wait until I turn base to report. No if the jet was on an extended final and my base turn would put us in conflict I would most likely say at my normal base turn location that I am extending downwind for inbound traffic.

BTW can anyone who is advocating the use of ATITAPA how it helps given that there could also be NORDO aircraft in the pattern?
 
Everskyward said:
Me three. I flew with a number of pilots who used it. I never used it but I never realized people got heartburn over it until I started reading message boards. Sometime after it changed in the AIM we got an e-mail asking us not to use it any more.

My theory is that somewhere back in the 1980s regional pilots starting using that phrase and other pilots started copying it thinking it was a good idea. The reason the habit has continued is that a large proportion of pilots don't read internet message boards, and at least as far as regional and corporate pilots are concerned, they don't much if any recurrent training at uncontrolled fields either in real life or in the simulator. The only reason I would get checked at an uncontrolled field is if on my yearly line check we happened to go to one and that hasn't happened in years.

BTW, I think stubbornly refusing to give a position report just because you are annoyed at the phrase is as bad as using the phrase in the first place. The same goes for those who give some kind of sarcastic reply.
Click to expand...

Rick Durden says it started during the controllers strike when controlled fields became uncontrolled and the regional plane jockeys got nervous. They did the ATITPA, as now, as if they were flying controllers with somehow more privilege or status on the frequency.

As we know now for example, an IR means you break in on the CTAF for a short time, make a position report that no other pilot will understand, "Lear oscar-zero-zero is 7 miles out on the tango-alpha-charlie..." demand that you be told who dares to be flying and then tune right back out.
 
mikea said:
Rick Durden says it started during the controllers strike when controlled fields became uncontrolled and the regional plane jockeys got nervous. They did the ATITPA, as now, as if they were flying controllers with somehow more privilege or status on the frequency.
Click to expand...
That would correspond to my memory of the 1980s however I don't think it has anything to do with "privilege or status".

mikea said:
As we know now for example, an IR means you break in on the CTAF for a short time, make a position report that no other pilot will understand, "Lear oscar-zero-zero is 7 miles out on the tango-alpha-charlie..." demand that you be told who dares to be flying and then tune right back out.
Click to expand...
Got a little bit of stereotyping going on here? :confused:
 
Everskyward said:
Not in this particular thread but I have seen it in others of the many threads about this subject.
Click to expand...

I get the urge for both responses (silence and/or sarcasm) but so far I've managed to suppress those urges enough to just say or think them to myself without wasting the radio bandwidth. I must admit that there are times when the temptation to give in to the dark side is strong though.
 
Like any other superfluous call, ATITAPA usually does no harm, and sure, I could see if someone's flying something fast that needs lots of room to maneuver, and they've just switched to the CTAF, and they announce position and intentions and don't hear a response, it might seem to be a good idea... but again, for the hundredth time, the standard (and most efficient) procedure is to have everyone with a radio respond to such callups with any relevant information, and that should tak care of tha problem.
If a pilot already in the pattern can't tell if they might come into conflict after hearing an approaching pilot's initial callup, they sure as hell won't have anything more useful to say if that call is followed by "ATITAPA".

And in the end, it's the responsibilty of all to see and avoid, assuming VMC. If the field is IFR, everyone should be following standard approaches, and ATC should be sequencing to minimize conflicts... and when you break out, you should still be looking, 'cuz you never know. ATITAPA does't help in that scenario any more than under VFR.

These protocols make ATITAPA completely unnecessary, putting it in the same place on the priority scale with "is there free coffee at the FBO?", IMHO.

To me, the best procedure if you are still uncertain as you approach apattern is to simply announce again. This actually helps others fit you into their "big picture" better, and keeps the chatter to a minimum.
 
smigaldi said:
I still say that I am an approach as I have had on two occasions people tell me that "straight in approaches" are not allowed. Another can of worms based on false understandings of the FAR and AIM. Stating I am flying an approach seems to stop those types of ' FAA radio cops' from speaking up.
Click to expand...

I've had that flying VFR and announcing a straight in approach. I asked where it said that in the A/FD and the frequency went silent. Maroons.

rottydaddy said:
These protocols make ATITAPA completely unnecessary, putting it in the same place on the priority scale with "is there free coffee at the FBO?", IMHO.
Click to expand...

Actually, that might be a more useful call. :D
 
I even heard ATITAPA in Iraq. I didn't bother to see if the Iraq AIM said anything about using the phrase :)
 
jtheune said:
Here's the scenario: The jet is coming in IFR and is taking to ATC. ATC would turn him over to tower who would tell him of trafffic in the area. But now the tower closes and the jet is turned loose. He switchs to CTAF. He could make a announcement of his position and listen for replies if the other traffic in the area thinks they are in conflict with him. But, 1: this takes time while the various traffic decides if they are in conflict and 2: If the traffic decides they are not in conflict and says nothing the jet will not know about them until they happen to make a annoucnemnt of the next turn or such. Now the jet driver is building a picture in his/her mind of what is going on in the area but it takes a while becuase the traffic may only report themselves as the reach turn points. As I said it's a tough call but in this and only this situation I don't know that I can fault him for wanting to develop a picture of the traffic now rather then later.
Click to expand...

Ummm... Okay, so let's look at your scenario with and without ATITAPA:

Jet: "Waukesha Traffic, Learjet 12345, 5-mile straight-in final runway 10, Waukesha, any traffic in the area please advise."
Flivver: "Waukesha Traffic, Bugsmasher 54321 is 1 mile northeast on the missed approach, heading to Badger."

Jet: "Waukesha Traffic, Learjet 12345, 5-mile straight-in final runway 10, Waukesha."
Flivver: "Waukesha Traffic, Bugsmasher 54321 is 1 mile northeast on the missed approach, heading to Badger."

So... How is ATITAPA helping here? :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ummm... Okay, so let's look at your scenario with and without ATITAPA:

Jet: "Waukesha Traffic, Learjet 12345, 5-mile straight-in final runway 10, Waukesha, any traffic in the area please advise."
Flivver: "Waukesha Traffic, Bugsmasher 54321 is 1 mile northeast on the missed approach, heading to Badger."

Jet: "Waukesha Traffic, Learjet 12345, 5-mile straight-in final runway 10, Waukesha."
Flivver: "Waukesha Traffic, Bugsmasher 54321 is 1 mile northeast on the missed approach, heading to Badger."

So... How is ATITAPA helping here? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Because in the first case the the bugsmasher that was 4 miles north of the field and inbound but did not think there would be a issue would hopefully volenteer thier position and the learjet would now know about them while the second case they would not. Also in the second case the bugsmasher may or may not respond to the 5 mile straight in becuase they did not see a conflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top