ATITPPA origin finally discovered?

[Half Fast]

Unicom and Multicom are both CTAFs, as are tower frequencies when the tower is inop. I think Multicom is always 122.9 and used when there is no Unicom on that airfield. Personally, I think that "CTAF" covers it all, even though it's an extra syllable . . .

Right, and some airports list only a CTAF. X04 (Apopka), for example, has 123.05 as CTAF, and no Unicom or Multicom.

I think the point of the 122.9 Multicom is to have a frequency to use at small remote fields that don’t even have an assigned CTAF.

Side note - I sure wish we’d get more frequencies allocated, or at least better coordination. Around here there are (I think) 5 airports using 123.05 for CTAF and the airwaves get pretty crowded. Apopka also has automated wx on the frequency activated by mic clicks, and it seems like it’s always talking when I’m in the KGIF pattern with several other people. Grumble....

 

[Half Fast]

Well, I think the discussion was whether or not they exist. My assertion is, because I can’t see any proof of existence even when it’s specified, then they don’t exist, but others seem to disagree.

Just because you haven’t seen Bigfoot doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist....

 

[WDD]

Well, I think the discussion was whether or not they exist. My assertion is, because I can’t see any proof of existence even when it’s specified, then they don’t exist, but others seem to disagree.

I've never had anyone from the ground communicate with me at an untowered airport, so if asking me I can't say I'm aware of any Unicom existing. Maybe there is one left in Alaksa; I don't know.

I remember years ago asking my CFI what a Unicom and Multicom was. She wasn't aware. I'm still not clear on what the concept of Multicom vs Unicom is. Would be interesting history to learn.

EDIT: I see that Half Fast used his physic powers to answer the question before I asked it.

I think the point of the 122.9 Multicom is to have a frequency to use at small remote fields that don’t even have an assigned CTAF.

 

[Half Fast]

I'm still not clear on what the concept of Multicom vs Unicom is. Would be interesting history to learn.

Well, theoretically,....

Unicom has a ground station at the airport and Multicom does not. Multicom is always 122.9. Unicom is an assigned frequency to a licensed ground station.

CTAF can be Unicom, Multicom, or tower frequency when the tower is closed. And apparently it can also be its own unique frequency, when there is no Unicom.

 

[Half Fast]

I've never had anyone from the ground communicate with me at an untowered airport,

I have but it’s rare. It will sometimes happen if there’s been an accident and they need to tell you a runway is closed, for example.

 

[Pinecone]

In the old days (I hate saying that ), Unicom would be answered with suggested runway, altimeter setting (an altimeter mounted near the radio), and any other information.

Now, about the only time I hear responses on Unicom are at towered fields where Unicom is used to talk to the FBO. But in many cases, the FBO monitors ground, so when you tell ground you are taxiing to ABC FBO, they know you are coming and some will meet you to direct you to parking.

At MTN, flying the CAP 182, we call Unicom to request the fuel truck to come to the parking space to fuel.

Definitions, notice Unicom is a Air to Ground use and CTAF is Air to Air:

A UNICOM (universal communications) station is an air-ground communication facility operated by a non-air traffic control private agency to provide advisory service at uncontrolled aerodromes and airports and to provide various non-flight services, such as requesting a taxi, even at towered airports. It is also known as an aeronautical advisory station.

Common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) is the name given to the VHF radio frequency used for air-to-air communication at United States, Canadian and Australian non-towered airports.

In U.S. and Canadian aviation, MULTICOM is a frequency allocation used as a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) by aircraft near airports where no air traffic control is available.

 

[Pilawt]

From the back of a 1967 sectional chart (which in those days served as the Chart Supplement / A/FD)



In those pre-ASOS days, the typical radio call on 122.8 at an uncontrolled field was "Podunk Unicom, Bugsmasher 123 ten miles west, landing advisory please." If Goober was at the FBO desk, he'd answer. If he was out putting 80 octane in Bubba's Luscombe, then maybe somebody else in the pattern might answer.

Years ago my home field, busy Pearson Field (VUO) in Vancouver WA, had the same CTAF frequency as The Dalles Muni (DLS), Oregon. DLS is 63 NM from VUO and on the other side of the Cascades mountain range, so what's the problem? When a bizjet was inbound to DLS out of FL380, and the FO was arranging with the FBO for fuel, Prist, lav service, ground transportation, lodging, feminine companionship and pizza with anchovies ... it was a problem.

 

[EdFred]

Right, and some airports list only a CTAF. X04 (Apopka), for example, has 123.05 as CTAF, and no Unicom or Multicom.

I think the point of the 122.9 Multicom is to have a frequency to use at small remote fields that don’t even have an assigned CTAF.

Side note - I sure wish we’d get more frequencies allocated, or at least better coordination. Around here there are (I think) 5 airports using 123.05 for CTAF and the airwaves get pretty crowded. Apopka also has automated wx on the frequency activated by mic clicks, and it seems like it’s always talking when I’m in the KGIF pattern with several other people. Grumble....

6 within 100 miles.

http://www.sidnaw.org/frequencies/

(data as of 6/2021)

 

[dbahn]

The practical application of all this discussion is that if you have current charts you just use the frequency in maroon letters in text (or in blue for towered fields) near the airport name. If none exists, use 122.9.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

http://www.sidnaw.org/frequencies/

There are 15 airports using 123.0 within 100nm of ONZ

ONZ GROSSE ILE MUNI DETROIT/GROSSE ILE, MI 0nm
76G MARINE CITY MARINE CITY, MI 45nm NE sometimes
OZW LIVINGSTON COUNTY SPENCER J HARDY HOWELL, MI 48nm NW all the ****ing time
9G2 PRICES LINDEN, MI 50nm NW nope
USE FULTON COUNTY WAUSEON, OH 52nm SW I think so
D95 DUPONT-LAPEER LAPEER, MI 58nm N yup
7W5 HENRY COUNTY NAPOLEON, OH 59nm SW nope
16G SENECA COUNTY TIFFIN, OH 60nm S frequently
RNP OWOSSO COMMUNITY OWOSSO, MI 69nm NW nope
R47 RUHE'S LEIPSIC, OH 72nm SW never
FPK FITCH H BEACH CHARLOTTE, MI 79nm W ditto for the rest.
CFS TUSCOLA AREA CARO, MI 83nm N
1G5 MEDINA MUNI MEDINA, OH 85nm SE
GWB DE KALB COUNTY AUBURN, IN 98nm SW
VNW VAN WERT COUNTY VAN WERT, OH 99nm SW

 

[MauleSkinner]

My guess is that there have been more than a few communication gaps when the Unicom licensee either lets their license expire or goes out of business, and whoever is supposed to let the FAA know for A/FD revision doesn’t realize that’s part of the process.

 

[Pilawt]

Nearby Buckeye AZ (BXK) is on 122.975. So is Stellar Airpark (P19), well within low-altitude line-of-sight VHF radio reception. Unfortunately both have runways 17/35, which makes traffic calls interesting if the airport name is left off the end of the transmission.

 

[dbahn]

We have such an ideal radio situation at Sugarbush for our glider operation. The airport is shielded in between two ridges so near the ground we essentially have our own operational frequency. Roughly above 2,000 AGL we pick up New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, and Quebec with little or no need to communicate with any of them.

 

[Brad W]

back on the "any traffic in the area please advise" thing
yes, that' is bothersome to me to...but honestly don't remember hearing that very often.

What I do recall hearing much more, and even saying myself, is "approach, N1234 with request"
and that just bugs me bigtime.
just calling "approach, N1234" tells them you are calling them...and depending on the context (where you are, what's going on around you, what's been said to or by you lately, etc.) the controller will likely already be able to figure out you have a request. But if they don't still, it's like ringing a phone.
or
just add "flight following" real quick right after "request"...so that you can cut to the chase....and eliminate at least one or more utterances of your tail number cluttering the freq.

N1234 request
N1234 say request.
N1234 is a cessna 152 requesting flight following
N1234 squawk .....

 

[WDD]

Interesting POV. My CFI actually taught me to do just that, "Request". Now, that was when flying VFR and not currently on Flight Following or on a plan. He said that way if they're too busy they won't even reply to you. If they get back to you, then request Flight Following.

I like Brad's approach (pun intended) better. Any controllers here to tell us what they prefer?

 

[Brad W]

I was taught it too...just never seemed logical to me though

 

[Schokie]

The Opposing Bases podcast mentioned the "VFR request" tag recently. They seem to prefer it, so they knew you weren't an IFR aircraft and they didn't have to frantically look around thinking they missed a strip somewhere.

 

[WDD]

The Opposing Bases podcast mentioned the "VFR request" tag recently. They seem to prefer it, so they knew you weren't an IFR aircraft and they didn't have to frantically look around thinking they missed a strip somewhere.

Ah - that makes sense. Thanks!

 

[Salty]

In busy airspace there’s no point in tying up the airwaves if they don’t have time for you, so I usually say “vfr request”. If they are too busy, they will ignore or say they are too busy. If they aren’t, it’s not that much wasted time if you are prepared to respond with the right info when they are ready for you. If they aren’t real busy, might as well tell them your request on initial contact.

 

[schmookeeg]

It's like the pilot version of this meme.

 

[luvflyin]

Interesting POV. My CFI actually taught me to do just that, "Request". Now, that was when flying VFR and not currently on Flight Following or on a plan. He said that way if they're too busy they won't even reply to you. If they get back to you, then request Flight Following.

I like Brad's approach (pun intended) better. Any controllers here to tell us what they prefer?

I preferred VFR Request for the same reason @Schokie said those Opposing Bases guys said. Post #97

 

[WDD]

Ok. I think then I’ll keep the “Request” as I was taught.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

back on the "any traffic in the area please advise" thing
yes, that' is bothersome to me to...but honestly don't remember hearing that very often.

Used to hear it all. the. freaking. time. before the FAA published that admonishment not to use it in the AIM.

As far as where it came from, my understanding was that when the PATCO controllers were all let go, the NAS was very short of ATC and most of the remaining tower controllers were moved to en route/tracon facilities, leaving all but the busiest towers unstaffed, so the airlines started using ATITAPA and the wanna-bes that thought it sounded cool made it stick.

What I do recall hearing much more, and even saying myself, is "approach, N1234 with request"
and that just bugs me bigtime.

Same. If you have a request, many times you can say what the request is at least in general terms as fast as you can give your tail number and "with request" so just make the request the first time and save everyone a lot of time.

Similarly, the one I hear a LOT, even from - especially from - pro pilots is "Center, Airline 123, we'd like to put FL230 on request." How about just "Center, Airline 123, request FL230." Lose all that extraneous garbage.

I actually got complimented by a controller once for having a clear, concise initial call that had everything they needed and nothing else. "Madison Approach, bugsmasher 1234A, Watertown, 4,500, landing with Bravo." Done.

 

[iamtheari]

Unicom and Multicom are both CTAFs, as are tower frequencies when the tower is inop. I think Multicom is always 122.9 and used when there is no Unicom on that airfield. Personally, I think that "CTAF" covers it all, even though it's an extra syllable . . .

I say it “see-taff” so it’s fewer syllables than Unicom or Multicom.

 

[iamtheari]

Just because you haven’t seen Bigfoot doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist....

 

[woodchucker]

I actually got complimented by a controller once for having a clear, concise initial call that had everything they needed and nothing else. "Madison Approach, bugsmasher 1234A, Watertown, 4,500, landing with Bravo." Done.[/QUOTE]

I don’t know. When talking to my local bravo when outside I just send my number and say request. Keep the initial call simple. Usually they just send me a code followed with “what’s your request”. They anticipate I’ll need bravo clearance for landing or transition and then can elaborate a transition or landing with whatever info.

It’s really geographically dependent. I’ve only heard one of my local bravo controllers get cross with a pilot who accepted something and didn’t understand the VFR reference. That was a bit of public butt chewing there. And it’s really locally dependent. Certain roads or highways. At the risk of clarity don’t be afraid to verify and ask for vectors or additional info if needed.

My point is … be concise. But if you don’t know what you are doing with ATC instructions then ask. Being concise is great. If you are familiar. But if not don’t hesitate to ask for clarification.

 

[Doug Reid]

Still hear ATITAPA plus " last call" almost every weekend.
Back when the unicom/multicom frequencies were implemented, there were a lot of airplanes with limited frequency capabilities...like Narco Superhomers for example. Most all had 122.8 or 123.0, but having 90 channels was a big upgrade.

 

[iamtheari]

I was on a cross-country trip a few years ago, listening to a comedy act on 122.8 the whole way. This guy in a Bonanza was headed for some airport using that frequency and he dutifully made every possible position call that you could ask for (names changed to protect my innocent but failure-prone memory):

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo is 30 miles southwest, 4,500 feet, inbound, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo is 20 miles southwest, 4,500 feet, inbound, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, 15 miles southwest, 4,500 feet, inbound, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, 10 miles southwest, 4,320 feet, inbound, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, 8 miles southwest, 3,960 feet, inbound, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, 5 miles southwest, 3,470 feet, inbound, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise. Podunk traffic.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, 3 miles southwest, 2,973 feet, entering left downwind for runway 31, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, left downwind for runway 31, full stop, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, left base for runway 31, full stop, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise. Podunk traffic.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, turning left base to final for runway 31, full stop, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, on final for runway 31, full stop, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise. Podunk traffic.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, short final for runway 31, full stop, Podunk traffic. Any traffic in the area please advise. Podunk traffic.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, back taxi runway 31. Any traffic in the area please advise. Podunk traffic.

Podunk traffic, Bonanza 23 Bravo, clear of runway 31, Podunk traffic.

And at this point, after that last call, I'm thinking two things. First, he didn't say "clear of the active." So that's good. Second, I'm muttering to myself, "say it say it say it." And sure enough, he had unkeyed the mic but a second later keyed it back up to add, "Any traffic in the area please advise."

Why?!??!?!??! What would ever possess you to ask this after almost a half hour of asking it over and over and nobody ever responding, when you are clear of the runway? Whatever the origin of this cliche and useless phrase on the radio, at least keep it to one call per pattern entry. After that first call, you are the traffic in the area who should be advising newcomers of the situation, not continuing to ask it as if someone who just fired up his plane or just tuned in CTAF inbound would have more traffic information to advise you about than you already know.

Ugh. Okay, /rant. Last call.

 

[Zeldman]

The scary part of all this is after hearing the ATITPPA phrase and do not hear anyone respond, there are folks that stop looking for traffic.

 

[Palmpilot]

It’s really geographically dependent. I’ve only heard one of my local bravo controllers get cross with a pilot who accepted something and didn’t understand the VFR reference. That was a bit of public butt chewing there. And it’s really locally dependent. Certain roads or highways. At the risk of clarity don’t be afraid to verify and ask for vectors or additional info if needed.

Amen. The last time I was in that situation, the tower controller told me to fly direct to a building that I didn't know (which I later found out is on the final approach course just outside the class D). "Not familiar with that landmark" worked well. The controller just issued alternate instructions (which consisted of overflying the airport and joining right downwind). No butt-chewing needed.

 

[Sundancer]

Recently I’ve heard something even more annoying : “Taking the active for immediate departure.” Followed by lining up and sitting there while setting power, running a checklist and eventually rolling.

LOL! I had the opposite long ago - short final into now defunct Suburban airport, adjacent to For Meade and KFME; I was on VERY short final when a Navion based there decided his runup was complete and pulled onto the active and rolled. I had called entry, downwind, base, and final. He never said a word. Should have been a clue. . .

We were in formation briefly as I sidestepped to the right. I indicated by hand signal my estimate of his IQ - his pax was bemused. I thought later that perhaps he was just on the wrong freq and I was too harsh - but the airport guys said no, that was pretty much how he operated.

 

[dbahn]

I thought later that perhaps he was just on the wrong freq and I was too harsh - but the airport guys said no, that was pretty much how he operated.

I'm not a fan of snitches, but in a case like this I would at the very least contact the pilot and remind him that he is repeatedly violating the regulations and can lose his certificate in the process.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not a fan of snitches, but in a case like this I would at the very least contact the pilot and remind him that he is repeatedly violating the regulations and can lose his certificate in the process.

No regulation says you have to communicate at an uncontrolled field... At least, in the US.

 

[Sundancer]

I'm not a fan of snitches, but in a case like this I would at the very least contact the pilot and remind him that he is repeatedly violating the regulations and can lose his certificate in the process.

It was quite a while back. Losing his ticket would be unlikely I think. Maybe excessive, too.

 

[Pilawt]

No regulation says you have to communicate at an uncontrolled field... At least, in the US.

For every rule there's an exception. Pearson Field, Vancouver WA (VUO) Special Flight Rules Area.

 

[dbahn]

No regulation says you have to communicate at an uncontrolled field... At least, in the US.

That's not what would trigger any FAA action. It's the violation of ROW rules in 91.113, particularly on a repeated basis. You can't force an aircraft on final to go around by pulling onto the runway in front of him without violating that rule.

 

[Salty]

That's not what would trigger any FAA action. It's the violation of ROW rules in 91.113, particularly on a repeated basis. You can't force an aircraft on final to go around by pulling onto the runway in front of him without violating that rule.

I hope you're wrong. I wouldn't want the FAA violating me because a random person claims a violation of a completely un-quantifiable regulation. Maybe if you had video of the event(s), but not just because a couple people agreed with the complaint.

 

[dbahn]

I hope you're wrong. I wouldn't want the FAA violating me because a random person claims a violation of a completely un-quantifiable regulation.

I don't think they would. I think it's the repeated behavior that triggers the action, and if there's sufficient evidence of that it goes before an administrative law judge.

 

[Palmpilot]

I hope you're wrong. I wouldn't want the FAA violating me because a random person claims a violation of a completely un-quantifiable regulation. Maybe if you had video of the event(s), but not just because a couple people agreed with the complaint.

I don't see where 91.113(g) leaves any room for that hope. Proving it happened might not be that easy, however.

"Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach."

 

[Salty]

I don't see where 91.113(g) leaves any room for that hope. Proving it happened might not be that easy, however.

"Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach."

That is my point. Just because someone says I "took advantage" doesn't mean I did. Some people expect to have the entire airport to themselves.