Winds 22004KT favoring runway 11

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but all the noise abatement requests I've seen are unidirectional and pertain to takeoffs (more noise at takeoff than landing). Now I'm sure there are some bi-directional ones (takeoff in one direction and land the opposite) but I haven't been to an airport that has those.

Which means that by asking pilots to use runway 29 for noise abatement, they want people to not fly over the area east of the field (I guess the people in Roselle complain the loudest).

So by using runway 29 for landing, you flew over the area that the airport manager is trying to abate the noise over.

^This. The noise abatement isn't really for landings, especially those of a piston GA bird since they're usually at low power or idle during their decent from base to final. The noise from takeoffs is where the noise abatement becomes an issue.
 

So...I am supposed to look at this video and go " golly gee..that was loud " ? What was the SPL ? It is not that loud if you turn down the volume on the video...right ? I hear RV's all the time, I also hear Cessna 210's .310's ,421's, Barons, Turbine Military Helicopters, Citations, Gulfstreams, P-51 Mustangs, AT-6's, etc. The RV is not a loud airplane by comparison...especially during landing.
 
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but all the noise abatement requests I've seen are unidirectional and pertain to takeoffs (more noise at takeoff than landing). Now I'm sure there are some bi-directional ones (takeoff in one direction and land the opposite) but I haven't been to an airport that has those.

I've definitely seen noise abatement procedures that apply to both directions though admittedly its usually further out in the pattern such as a downwind or base/xw leg. About the closest I've seen to a noise abatement on final are requests to fly the pattern and not do straight in's or to turn final inside a certain point which doesn't really doesn't impact the approach course of a properly executed final (i.e. a turn to base inside a certain point shortens final but doesnt impact course and a turn to final inside a specific point is more of a "dont overshoot" the turn to final).

There are also plenty of airports that use right patterns for a runway but not the other for the purpose of noise abatement.

I can definitely see and would second the op's complaint if this were the case as having patterns in 2 different directions creates an on-going traffic conflict whereas 2 left patterns to the same opposite direction runway really only presents a risk factor for the actively landing traffic (and any traffic departing while the opposite direction incoming traffic is on final) though it can limit your options for a go-around.
 
So...I am supposed to look at this video and go " golly gee..that was loud " ?

Hadn't thought about what you were supposed to do. That would be outside of my control... but you are correct if you turn up the volume it could be really loud. Likewise you could turn it down and pretend it's some sort of futuristic space airplane that makes no noise at all.
 
Not sure why you are worked up over nothing. How do you know the pilot dis-regarded noise abatement procedures? Did you see him takeoff? Do you know what the noise abatement procedures are?
 
As a CFII, are you telling me that if an airport has a preferred runway listed in the Chart Supplement, if the conditions for the preferred runway prevail, and if traffic uses the preferred runway, there is nothing wrong with intentionally landing on the opposite runway?

When we talk about hazardous attitudes, isn't this a bit of antiauthority (I don't care what the A/FD says about this airport, can't I land on any runway I choose?) and a bit of impulsivity (FlightAware shows that he departed from left downwind for 29 and entered left downwind for 11)?

I don't mean to make a big deal out of this; it's that I haven't seen anything like this before, I am curious, a bit annoyed for sure, but open to learning.

Well there are certain reasons to land on a different runway than the one “active in use” runway. I just did this recently when I wanted some cross wind practice. I took off on runway 22 (RP) turned downwind and adjusted to a downwind for runway 26 (RP) and landed on 26 for a few circuits before transitioning back to runway 22. There was a helicopter and one airplane in the pattern (at one point) and I announced my intentions clearly and everyone was happy with the result. It all comes down to using the radio. Helicopters already have to use a different pattern and work themselves into the landing traffic, so not much different.
 
Here's what the AIM says:
RY 29 PREFERED RY IN CALM & DIRECT CROSSWINDS. DEP ACFT FLY RY HEADING TO 1400 FT MSL BEFORE STARTING CROSSWIND TURN.

The noise abatement procedure sure sounds like it applies to "DEP ACFT." 29 is Preferred but not obligatory.
 
I could have done a better job writing my OP yesterday, but my frustration was not about the other pilot's radio calls, nor about his landing in a tailwind. It was about landing in the opposite direction than everyone else.

The Chart Supplement says that 29 is the preferred runway for 06C under certain wind conditions. Those conditions prevailed yesterday. It was a beautiful day to fly. The local schools were out. A few lucky people who could take the day off to fly where out -- I was one of them. The airport was busy.

Everyone based at 06C knows about 29. I have not heard about any local pilots, students, or renters, intentionally going to ry 11 when conditions favor the preferred runway. The schools, in particular, are very serious about that preference. Many regulars who fly to 06C for the restaurant, know about ry 29. I get that preferred is not obligatory. But yesterday, everyone before and after that blue airplane was on 29.

I am the last person to lecture another pilot over the radio, in person, or in writing. All I did yesterday was to tell a fellow pilot, as a courtesy, that 06C was landing 29. I was there for 2 hours at that time practicing and I had a pretty good idea of what direction everyone was using. That's all I did, "blue RV on downwind for 11 Archer 35K left downwind 29 looking for you and 06C lands 29 today". If he didn't know about 29, he could have changed his approach. He wanted to land on 11 and that's that.

The only thing I can say to that pilot's defense is that KORD was landing to the east. If he didn't listen to CTAF, he may have surmised from the airliners' direction that 06C would also be landing to the east.

I didn't mind his casual radio ID as "blue RV". Personally, I use the FAA-mandated format, but I see the point that others make in favor of color/type -- at least for daytime flying. I didn't mind about his landing with a tailwind; it's a skill I aspire to one day. Though 06C is notorious for underreporting wind speed by 30%-50%. My only issue was that he landed opposite to everyone else. And, I am being told here, that's not a big issue, so I won't fret over it anymore. Thanks for the feedback.
 
I fly to a lot of uncontrolled fields with the challenger. Often times we select a runway that is most convenient, sometimes 30 minutes out, even if its a downwind landing. And once I switch to CTAF, if there's someone using the other runway, I just let them know which way we're landing at thats the end of that. I've never heard of someone getting so upset about it.

If someone wants to land the opposite direction, thats their choice. It is afterall called an uncontrolled airport for a reason
 
I could have done a better job writing my OP yesterday, but my frustration was not about the other pilot's radio calls, nor about his landing in a tailwind. It was about landing in the opposite direction than everyone else.

<snip>
Everyone based at 06C knows about 29. I have not heard about any local pilots, students, or renters, intentionally going to ry 11 when conditions favor the preferred runway. The schools, in particular, are very serious about that preference. Many regulars who fly to 06C for the restaurant, know about ry 29. I get that preferred is not obligatory. But yesterday, everyone before and after that blue airplane was on 29.

<snip>
You did right in my book. They made a call counter to the prevailing traffic. You gave them the heads up. They chose to continue and depending on traffic, opted for something less safe. Didn't press the issue. A NORDO (they have those under the Mode C veil?) is not expecting counter traffic and that's where things could have turned out much worse.
 
Lots of pilots are lemmings. Can't tell the number of times (before they ruined the place with an unneeded tower) that I found people at FDK landing downwind or into the setting sun on 30. All it often takes is a suggestion of "hey guys, the winds are favoring 5, let's turn the pattern." Once one person takes the intiative others follow. Of course, if you're an less than polite about it, people may be disinclined to be so accommodating.
 
I don’t know what the big deal is about picking the wrong runway and then adjusting when requested, but describing himself as “blue RV” is unforgivable!! Git yer pitchforks!!
 
I don’t know what the big deal is about picking the wrong runway and then adjusting when requested, but describing himself as “blue RV” is unforgivable!! Git yer pitchforks!!
I don't believe the story. The RV should be flying overhead breaks.
 
Boy, there's a lot of people in this thread who are bad at math.

Runway 11 had a tailwind. Yeah, not much of one... But several people are implying that the guy in the RV did the right thing because the winds favored 11. They didn't.

Big fly-ins generally have temporary (or permanent) ATC controllers that sequence and direct traffic. ATC has fairly strict requirements regarding opposite direction takeoffs or departures, especially when there is only 1 runway or multiple runways of similar alignment.

I think he's talking about all the chuckleheads who don't follow the procedures. On one of my trips into Oshkosh, while traffic was landing runway 9, a Luscombe landed on 27, not talking to anyone... And then when people started running toward the runway to tell him to get the hell off of it, he took off again, right into the flow of traffic on final. A B-25 and a P-51 had to go around, and I was the second plane to land after he took off.

The only part of the story that would have bothered me was the "flying over the airport for a left downwind." I still say entering the downwind from inside the pattern is dangerous, especially when there are other aircraft in the pattern. That's all. No further discussion necessary. Get off my lawn...

Except that's how it's done in Canada... And AC 90-66 lists it as the "alternate midfield entry."
 
Call sign? Call sign? If you have a radio and use it to let me know where you are, I'm cool with that - don't care if it's a 'N' number or your hair color.

How bout "Blue haired lady, mid-field downwind for 33"
 
backtracking your bad-cop position.

Noted.

At least you're not like some on here, and deleting your original post. :)

Wait a second...isn’t that a tad hypocritical? I mean, it’s in the regs that he can delete his original post if he for some reason wants to, right? ;-)
 
Last edited:
I could have done a better job writing my OP yesterday, but my frustration was not about the other pilot's radio calls, nor about his landing in a tailwind. It was about landing in the opposite direction than everyone else.

The Chart Supplement says that 29 is the preferred runway for 06C under certain wind conditions. Those conditions prevailed yesterday. It was a beautiful day to fly. The local schools were out. A few lucky people who could take the day off to fly where out -- I was one of them. The airport was busy.

Everyone based at 06C knows about 29. I have not heard about any local pilots, students, or renters, intentionally going to ry 11 when conditions favor the preferred runway. The schools, in particular, are very serious about that preference. Many regulars who fly to 06C for the restaurant, know about ry 29. I get that preferred is not obligatory. But yesterday, everyone before and after that blue airplane was on 29.

I am the last person to lecture another pilot over the radio, in person, or in writing. All I did yesterday was to tell a fellow pilot, as a courtesy, that 06C was landing 29. I was there for 2 hours at that time practicing and I had a pretty good idea of what direction everyone was using. That's all I did, "blue RV on downwind for 11 Archer 35K left downwind 29 looking for you and 06C lands 29 today". If he didn't know about 29, he could have changed his approach. He wanted to land on 11 and that's that.

The only thing I can say to that pilot's defense is that KORD was landing to the east. If he didn't listen to CTAF, he may have surmised from the airliners' direction that 06C would also be landing to the east.

I didn't mind his casual radio ID as "blue RV". Personally, I use the FAA-mandated format, but I see the point that others make in favor of color/type -- at least for daytime flying. I didn't mind about his landing with a tailwind; it's a skill I aspire to one day. Though 06C is notorious for underreporting wind speed by 30%-50%. My only issue was that he landed opposite to everyone else. And, I am being told here, that's not a big issue, so I won't fret over it anymore. Thanks for the feedback.

Considering there was more traffic in the pattern than just you and that the RV still decided to fly a normal pattern and land in the opposite direction of everyone else, I'd be upset and frustrated too. It seems like an unnecessary risk to all other traffic at the airport. If the airport is dead and nobody is around except for 2-3 planes (including the RV), then yeah you're going to have some conflicts and you're just going to have to manage it but once you start getting busy with more planes in the pattern, landing in the opposite direction of everyone else just mucks things up for everyone else, creates an unnecessary collision hazard and is as selfish as using your altitude to affect right of way and sequencing which the FAA specifically prohibits.

I probably would have changed your radio call a little bit informing him that 29 was being used for noise abatement and how many other people were in the pattern. Its information he probably should have been aware of already and perhaps its a tactic of public shaming to force compliance but a pilot who is going to land opposite direction because the marginal winds favor that runway isn't going to change his mind just on the fact that he's been informed the airport is operating in the other direction.

Instead of saying "blue RV on downwind for 11 Archer 35K left downwind 29 looking for you and 06C lands 29 today"
I probably would have left out my call sign and position and said something along the lines of "blue RV on downwind for 11, be advised there are at least X number of planes in the pattern and we're landing 29 today for noise abatement."

Your radio call is likely to get the "well the winds favor 11 so that's what I'm doing response" where mine is making the other pilot aware of just how many other people's pattern he is screwing up as well as giving a reason for landing 29 despite the winds.

As to the general knowledge of the noise abatement, just because it is well known doesnt mean its known by all and even when its known, not everyone complies with it.



I fly to a lot of uncontrolled fields with the challenger. Often times we select a runway that is most convenient, sometimes 30 minutes out, even if its a downwind landing. And once I switch to CTAF, if there's someone using the other runway, I just let them know which way we're landing at thats the end of that. I've never heard of someone getting so upset about it.

If someone wants to land the opposite direction, thats their choice. It is afterall called an uncontrolled airport for a reason

I give more latitude to jets because they dont normally fly the traffic pattern. Yeah it can be annoying when a jet is on a 5 mile final to the opposite direction runway as it holds up all other departing traffic including those of us in the pattern doing pattern work but the jet pilots usually do a nice job of keeping everyone informed where they are and keeping their speed up to minimize the time they are in conflict. An RV, though fast doesnt need the maneuvering space a jet does and should be flying the pattern.

I think he's talking about all the chuckleheads who don't follow the procedures. On one of my trips into Oshkosh, while traffic was landing runway 9, a Luscombe landed on 27, not talking to anyone... And then when people started running toward the runway to tell him to get the hell off of it, he took off again, right into the flow of traffic on final. A B-25 and a P-51 had to go around, and I was the second plane to land after he took off.

Good point. Considering the fly-in procedures are typically well documented and the airspace is controlled, I would definitely be upset with someone not following the procedure... but then I'm sure the FAA also was not happy with them either and they at bare minimum received a talking to from a FSDO rep if not other actions taken.


Boy, there's a lot of people in this thread who are bad at math.

Runway 11 had a tailwind. Yeah, not much of one... But several people are implying that the guy in the RV did the right thing because the winds favored 11. They didn't.

Nice catch! I think most of us took the RV's assertion that the winds were favoring 11 to be accurate and the overall tone of the ops post seemed more about noise abatement in calm/light winds than the RV flying a tailwind.

Given this, I'd probably inform the RV they need to check their math with winds 220. I'd probably make less issue about the noise abatement though I'd still also inform them of the number of planes doing patterns for 29 just so they're clear how many people they're about to screw over.
 
Nice catch! I think most of us took the RV's assertion that the winds were favoring 11 to be accurate and the overall tone of the ops post seemed more about noise abatement in calm/light winds than the RV flying a tailwind.

Given this, I'd probably inform the RV they need to check their math with winds 220. I'd probably make less issue about the noise abatement though I'd still also inform them of the number of planes doing patterns for 29 just so they're clear how many people they're about to screw over.

How many are really getting "screwed over" Assuming they are both on left patterns, they only need to adjust their downwind a bit once he's turned final to allow him time to land and clear the runway. It probably added less than 2 minutes to anyone's pattern. As long as everyone in the pattern was clear as to their positioning and his intent, then it's not really a big deal. Sure, it means a few of them had to extend downwind or slow up a bit, but being flexible in the pattern is a necessity. Uncontrolled fields require collaboration between the aircraft traffic, and it apparently worked just fine aside from someone getting mad that the RV wasn't doing it the way he wanted them to.
 
As a descendant of people eliminated by the nazis, as someone who has never met his grandfather because he never returned from a concentration camp, I am deeply offended by your remark. You are replying to a thread I started, where I describe how I informed a fellow pilot that everyone else was landing on the opposite runway. Is that what nazis do, really?

th
 
As a descendant of people eliminated by the nazis, as someone who has never met his grandfather because he never returned from a concentration camp, I am deeply offended by your remark. You are replying to a thread I started, where I describe how I informed a fellow pilot that everyone else was landing on the opposite runway. Is that what nazis do, really?
Sorry to hear about your grandfather. Truly.

What derogatory term would you prefer to describe your actions?
 
How many are really getting "screwed over" Assuming they are both on left patterns, they only need to adjust their downwind a bit once he's turned final to allow him time to land and clear the runway. It probably added less than 2 minutes to anyone's pattern. As long as everyone in the pattern was clear as to their positioning and his intent, then it's not really a big deal. Sure, it means a few of them had to extend downwind or slow up a bit, but being flexible in the pattern is a necessity. Uncontrolled fields require collaboration between the aircraft traffic, and it apparently worked just fine aside from someone getting mad that the RV wasn't doing it the way he wanted them to.

It wasn't really clear from the ops post how many people were out in the pattern. His first post it sounded like it was just him and the RV... Ok fine. His second post made it clear that there were other people doing pattern work at the time but he didn't put a number to it.

Screwing people over wasnt quite what I wanted to use though, I was trying to be nice but landing in the opposite direction of everyone else for your convenience is a very d**kish/a**hole type move, especially since it has now been pointed out that it wasn't even the runway favored by the winds (let alone the other issues raised such as noise abatement and runway used by all other traffic at that time).

And even if he's using left patterns for the runway, he's still preventing traffic from departing 29 while he's on final and how do you decide who has right of way if you have planes landing 29 and 11 at the same time? What about if something happens and one of the planes needs to go around? It was an entirely unncessary safety risk for his type of aircraft.

Frankly given all of the factors, I understand the ops ire. Legally the RV did nothing wrong and I'm not saying he cant land Rwy 11 but if he continued to fly the pattern and land Rwy 11 after being informed of multiple other planes in the pattern using 29, the winds actually favoring 29 and the noise abatement procedure that specifies 29 as the preferred runway and he continued to land Rwy 11, well, barring an extenuating circumstance or some other reason given, I'm going to judge that and call him a dou**ebag.
 
Last edited:
This thread is still going on? Oh brother. You guys who are offended by this incident need to realize, it's not an attack on you. It's not the first time it's happened, and it's not the last time it'll happen. It was not unsafe. it was not illegal. It *may* have been contrary to the norm, so what? It happens all the time, even at towered airports.

When you get out more and see the world, and get a little more experience, you'll find this out.
 
Each PIC determines which runway is best for their abilities,time to lighten up a bit.
 
As a descendant of people eliminated by the nazis, as someone who has never met his grandfather because he never returned from a concentration camp, I am deeply offended by your remark. You are replying to a thread I started, where I describe how I informed a fellow pilot that everyone else was landing on the opposite runway. Is that what nazis do, really?

Been following from a distance. But Wow! That is a reach. Please post all of the other words that you find offensive so that we know what words we are not allowed to use anymore.
 
As a descendant of people eliminated by the nazis, as someone who has never met his grandfather because he never returned from a concentration camp, I am deeply offended by your remark. You are replying to a thread I started, where I describe how I informed a fellow pilot that everyone else was landing on the opposite runway. Is that what nazis do, really?

Sounds like someone needs a hug.
 
Is this one of these dorks who refers to himself as “blue RV” rather than his tail number? If so, have him arrested.

I know you’re annoyed, but seriously though, i would report something unless it was a safety issue. I generally consider noise abatement issues to be the airport manager’s job to police.
Actually, noise abatement is a big deal. A really big deal. Folks not following procedure can lead to certain airplane types being banned, and certain departures to be mandated.
 
Actually, noise abatement is a big deal. A really big deal. Folks not following procedure can lead to certain airplane types being banned, and certain departures to be mandated.

Schaumburg has some psychopathic neighbors... I flew out of there years ago, and there was a guy that used to stand in his back yard with binoculars writing down tail numbers and sending nasty letters to the airport and to the city.
 
This is the equivalent of what happened to me in Home Depot yesterday. I patiently waited for a good minute for this woman to figure out she was in my way, went about my business and then not 2 minutes later she practically shoved me aside as she barreled down the aisle not even slowing to give me time to get out of her way.

Rude and annoying? yes. Time to let it go? Yes.
 
And in just about every other British commonwealth country. And it is more in line with the direct reading of the US regs.

My point is that Despite being allowed, it is not being performed IAW the published guidance.
 
Noise abatement almost always is about departures, as that is where you are at a high power setting and making the most noise. Obviously, preferred runways are usually going to be active unless wind is suggesting otherwise. The guy may have been a bit of a jerk to land on that runway when someone else was in the pattern, but obviously maintained VFR and everyone was safe. As for the "Blue RV" thing, the call sign over CTAF is AIM, not FAR - you can say what you want.
 
If it were me in the RV and some airport nazi told me to land on the less safe/wind runway, I'd have given them the standard aviation reply.
What about in this case where the OP was suggesting the more favorable / safe runway?

It was not unsafe.
It certainly creates the potential for a very unsafe encounter:
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140831X12212&key=1

Granted there's always the chance of getting run over and killed when landing in the same direction, but this still seems like the safer option:
https://ktla.com/2019/03/14/probe-u...mpton-airport-killing-1-and-injuring-another/
 
It certainly creates the potential for a very unsafe encounter:
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140831X12212&key=1

That's a big stretch there and not the same scenario as reported by the OP. Just because two aircraft are landing the same runway, from different directions, does not in and of itself make it unsafe. Can it be? Of course it can. Can it be done safely? Obviously it can, it's done at airports across the country every day.

Granted there's always the chance of getting run over and killed when landing in the same direction, but this still seems like the safer option:

I think the safer option would be to fly to a different airport where there is no traffic, or fly away and come back later, or extend your downwind, or even better, just don't fly. Otherwise, you're going to have to live with stuff like this. Just because it's different than what you're doing, doesn't automatically make it unsafe.

According to what I've read here, I saw no safety issue, just a dick wagging issue.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top