The 7 Deadly Sins of Radio Communications

Perhaps you should read a bit slower.
As I said, sometime it’s aporopriate, and sometime it’s not.

The problem is, it's never appropriate:
AIM Section 4-1-9(g)
Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF. Traffic in the area please advise' is not a recognized Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used under any condition.

As others have stated, you saying you're departing to the SE should prompt anyone SE of the airport to let you know they're there.
 
The problem is, it's never appropriate:
AIM Section 4-1-9(g)
Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their position or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated CTAF. Traffic in the area please advise' is not a recognized Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used under any condition.

As others have stated, you saying you're departing to the SE should prompt anyone SE of the airport to let you know they're there.
I’m aware. Still does not change my opinion.
 
That's okay! I'll continue to ignore that call!

As I do. I'll just make my next position report as SOP. Those wanting to know if I am in the pattern will find out... they'll just have to wait. I was on a 5 mile final at John Tune when a Citation called in at 10 miles. I didn't yield but did keep my speed up. He can slow her down or go around.
 
As I do. I'll just make my next position report as SOP. Those wanting to know if I am in the pattern will find out... they'll just have to wait.
Agree. I'm going to make the calls the FAA recommends. 10 miles out, downwind, base, final, and clear of the runway. If I'm in a slow plane, I'll add a 5 mile call. Now if someone makes a call that they're 15 miles to West and that's were I am, I'll quickly let them know. Them adding ATITAPA only slows down my response.
 
As I do. I'll just make my next position report as SOP. Those wanting to know if I am in the pattern will find out... they'll just have to wait.
That’s fine... just hope I don’t run you over in the mean time.
 
That’s fine... just hope I don’t run you over in the mean time.
Yes, that would be most unfortunate. They could attach the NTSB report to your epitaph.. 'Pilot failed to see and avoid'

But thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on my 6
 
That’s fine... just hope I don’t run you over in the mean time.
I think that's the point we're trying to make... I'm not going to let you run into me. In your example, you say you're taking off to the SW in a jet. You make the call and then say ATITAPA. If I'm SW, I'm going to tell you, you don't have to add this part. If I'm to the NW and I'm 12 miles out, I'm not making a call until I'm 10 miles out as normal. That's why the FAA says it's an unnecessary call. To me it just wastes time on an already congested frequency in our area.

It's one of those things people will never agree on... religion, politics, extenders on 140 gear, partial-power take offs, and ATITAPA!
 
Yes, that would be most unfortunate. They could attach the NTSB report to your epitaph.. 'Pilot failed to see and avoid'

But thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on my 6
Right. I’m not beyond making a mistake for certain, especially spotting a small airplane.
That’s why (at times) I find it useful to gather more information.
 
I think that's the point we're trying to make... I'm not going to let you run into me. In your example, you say you're taking off to the SW in a jet. You make the call and then say ATITAPA. If I'm SW, I'm going to tell you, you don't have to add this part. If I'm to the NW and I'm 12 miles out, I'm not making a call until I'm 10 miles out as normal. That's why the FAA says it's an unnecessary call. To me it just wastes time on an already congested frequency in our area.

It's one of those things people will never agree on... religion, politics, extenders on 140 gear, partial-power take offs, and ATITAPA!
I may not hear you. We do have a second radio for sure, but that’s about the time I’m checking in with ATC.
There are unlimited scenarios we could banter over, and every situation is different.

I equate it to Mr X driving with his lights off on purpose. Nobody needs to see him, as he can see and avoid everyone else.
But if a stretch, but a general thought.
 
That’s fine... just hope I don’t run you over in the mean time.
Do you include a position-and-intentions report with your atitapa request? If so, I'll make an immediate report if I'm in a position to become a factor for you. Otherwise, I'll wait until my next recommended report, because I don't want to block a call from someone who IS in a position to be a factor.

But I would have done that anyway, with or without the atitapa.
 
I equate it to Mr X driving with his lights off on purpose.
There's the rub. Everybody can have lights on without interfering with the others; but only one can talk on CTAF at a time. Unless, of course, someone at FL380 is doing business with an FBO at an airport 75 miles away that happens to share the same CTAF. Then nobody can talk.
 
There's the rub. Everybody can have lights on without interfering with the others; but only one can talk on CTAF at a time. Unless, of course, someone at FL380 is doing business with an FBO at an airport 75 miles away that happens to share the same CTAF. Then nobody can talk.

If the pilot doing business with the FBO is 75 miles away, the inverse square law says that he's not going to block any local transmissions.
 
If the pilot doing business with the FBO is 75 miles away, the inverse square law says that he's not going to block any local transmissions.

You apparently aren't familiar with line of sight and VHF communications. A pilot in the flight levels can be received for over 100 miles, which has been the point of this conversation. I recently heard one smart guy going into an airport that was nearly 200 NM away arranging for hotel transportation when he arrived, and letting them know he is 15 out.
 
If the pilot doing business with the FBO is 75 miles away, the inverse square law says that he's not going to block any local transmissions.
When KVUO (Vancouver WA) and KDLS (The Dalles OR) shared CTAF 123.0, bizjets at high altitudes enroute to KDLS often prevented KVUO traffic from making pattern calls.

The airports are 63 nm apart and on opposite sides of the Cascades mountain range.
 
Do you include a position-and-intentions report with your atitapa request? If so, I'll make an immediate report if I'm in a position to become a factor for you. Otherwise, I'll wait until my next recommended report, because I don't want to block a call from someone who IS in a position to be a factor.

But I would have done that anyway, with or without the atitapa.
In the day, the general call would be something like this... (keep in mind I’m off the ctaf to get IFR clearance)...

“XYX traffic, Citation departing 23 for westbound depararture. Traffic please advise.”

If there was obviously a lot of traffic in the pattern I would refrain, wait a while, and “learn” the pattern. If it seemed quiet I would likely make that call just in case I missed the straggler.

Further more, if two keyed up at the same time I knew there were multiple targets. So, yes... the jumble can provide info.
 
There's the rub. Everybody can have lights on without interfering with the others; but only one can talk on CTAF at a time. Unless, of course, someone at FL380 is doing business with an FBO at an airport 75 miles away that happens to share the same CTAF. Then nobody can talk.
Give it up. 123.0 is a Unicom frequency.
 
No frequency is safe from interference. There just aren't any that get exclusive use like that. I was on center one day and we were hearing some recorded message we couldn't make out (through some freak of propagation). Eventually, I was able to discern it as the Vero Beach ATIS, several states away. Normally not a problem, but it was coming through pretty well.
 
You apparently aren't familiar with line of sight and VHF communications. A pilot in the flight levels can be received for over 100 miles, which has been the point of this conversation. I recently heard one smart guy going into an airport that was nearly 200 NM away arranging for hotel transportation when he arrived, and letting them know he is 15 out.
You apparently aren't familiar with the inverse square law. Given equal radiated power, a plane that is in the vicinity of the airport can be heard over one that is far away that is transmitting at the same time. Both are line of sight, so that part is a wash.
 
When KVUO (Vancouver WA) and KDLS (The Dalles OR) shared CTAF 123.0, bizjets at high altitudes enroute to KDLS often prevented KVUO traffic from making pattern calls.

The airports are 63 nm apart and on opposite sides of the Cascades mountain range.
A distant aircraft prevents you from making a call only if you wait for it to stop transmitting before pressing the push-to-talk button.
 
Hm. Okay. But the A/FD-Chart Supplement, just for the State of Arizona, for example, lists 40 uncontrolled fields that have a single frequency listed as "CTAF/UNICOM". Some of them are even 123.0.
Yes.... that’s my point. It may suck and be congested, but Unicom frequency is not solely CTAF. Apoarantly people here don’t want to give any credit to corporate aviation, but these calls are needed. Services are set up ahead of time, but calls still need to be made to ensure the car is on the ramp, fuel truck is ready, catering ready, and so forth.
Some here (most) don’t seem to like that, but that IS the system.
 
You apparently aren't familiar with the inverse square law. Given equal radiated power, a plane that is in the vicinity of the airport can be heard over one that is far away that is transmitting at the same time. Both are line of sight, so that part is a wash.
Yup. Was going to post this exact thing (although I admit I didn’t know the formal name).
 
Further more, if two keyed up at the same time I knew there were multiple targets. So, yes... the jumble can provide info.
I consider knowing where traffic is to be more valuable than knowing that there is traffic in unknown locations.
 
I consider knowing where traffic is to be more valuable than knowing that there is traffic in unknown locations.
Yes.... but if two key up that us a flag to step back and wait.
 
You apparently aren't familiar with the inverse square law. Given equal radiated power, a plane that is in the vicinity of the airport can be heard over one that is far away that is transmitting at the same time. Both are line of sight, so that part is a wash.
The bizjet at FL380 inbound to Airport 'A' is not directly above airport 'A'. It might be directly above Airport 'B', 75 miles away, that happens to share the same CTAF.
 
The bizjet at FL380 inbound to Airport 'A' is not directly above airport 'A'. It might be directly above Airport 'B', 75 miles away, that happens to share the same CTAF.
I agree that that could be a problem for traffic in the pattern at airport B.
 
When that happens, how do you know when it is safe to proceed?
Not by radio communications alone, but I suspect you already knew that and trying to bait me into an unwinnable situation.
 
Not by radio communications alone, but I suspect you already knew that and trying to bait me into an unwinnable situation.
I'm not trying to do anything of the kind.

Personally, I don't see anything so terrible about including the atitapa as long as you also include your position and intentions in the transmission. I doubt that the atitapa portion of the call causes anyone who would not otherwise have done so to tell you where they are, but I don't see it as some kind of major transgression to include it. I'm not sure why the author of that passage in the AIM got so worked up about it.

However, I will continue to refrain from responding to it with extra transmissions unless I'm in a position to become a factor, because of the possibility of blocking the ONE transmission that the "atitapa" pilot most needs to hear.
 
5 miles is still outside the traffic area. Even if I'm not on an an approach, I'll announce once at 10, once at 5 and spend the rest of the time listening until on the 45 or whatever entry.

Related to this, I've begun adding how many minutes out we are when flying the jet. I think that's probably more helpful for other traffic that may be heading to the same airport. So a call 20 miles SE may sound like we're a long ways out but when I add "landing in 8 minutes" they get a sense of how much of a factor I might be for them.
 
True, but a potentially dangerous system. My concern, from having heard several of these conversations drag on unnecessarily, is that some of the participants don't seem to appreciate the effect they're having on other airports.
Well only speaking for myself and my crew, we would never intentionally interfere with ctaf communications. Has it ever happened? Perhaps.
It’s usually a quick call with what we need (mostly verification, but some things you cannot predict), lasting 10-15 seconds at most.
I think it’s way overblown tbh.
 
TRAFFIC IN SIGHT is the accepted form and only has one more syllable. But, you're right that doesn't bother me as much as all the things that people say when they mean "NEGATIVE CONTACT."
My CFI always said, "No Joy"
 
TRAFFIC IN SIGHT is the accepted form and only has one more syllable. But, you're right that doesn't bother me as much as all the things that people say when they mean "NEGATIVE CONTACT."
How 'bout "JUDY" ;):rolleyes:

Nauga,
beaming
 
Back
Top