Aviation Aggravations

Re: Aviation Aggrivations

jesse said:
Try me. I rent airplanes. I have no problem running my prop up your tail.
Click to expand...
Wow...hey to each their own, but ... don't ask don't tell, k? ;)
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

wabower said:
How is it supposed to happen? Two co-pilots flip a coin?
Click to expand...

What I'm referring to is someone who is a private pilot or recreational flyer that insist on being addressed as Captain. Also in this group are the rating collectors that really never worked in commercial aviation or flew anything bigger than a light twin.
 
Re: Aviation Aggraivations

Jay Honeck said:
My all-time pet peeve, however, is the pilot doing a practice instrument approach who calls out to everyone that he's "Inbound on the VOR-alpha approach" -- as if that means *anything* to any of the students and VFR pilots in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Right. Students and VFR pilots in the pattern cannot be expected to even know what a VOR is let alone where it's located.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

I seem to recall something in the FOI about students should be capable of dealing with traffic (which includes idiots in the traffic pattern) prior to first solo. Tony seems to agree:

tonycondon said:
If your student was ready to solo they should be ready to deal with goofy people flying goofy patterns.
Click to expand...

Ahh, there we go.

Obviously if your student is on first solo and somebody else goes and screws it up for him then that's annoying. But, your student should be ready for that. I was by my first solo. My instructor specifically gave me exercises to be ready for it (and it actually happened on one of our rounds of touch-and-gos).

I only do straight-in approaches to uncontrolled fields when nobody else is around. If there is someone in the pattern, I generally stay high, establish where that person is (preferably communicate with him/her until one of us has the other in sight), and then enter the pattern as appropriate. Safety remains compromised.

At a controlled field, you WILL get told to do straight in, or else get told to just establish a base leg (no downwind). Nothing wrong with doing that anywhere else, just keep on the radio.

Felix and Jesse: :rofl:
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Would you be happier with a G5 joining all that pattern activity?
Click to expand...
At CXO, we had a Lear 60 and a Hawker 800 that regularly entered the pattern, properly and flew tighter than the idiots that were being taught at a 141 school on the field. So, I'd not mind at all.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Ted DuPuis said:
Obviously if your student is on first solo and somebody else goes and screws it up for him then that's annoying. But, your student should be ready for that. I was by my first solo. My instructor specifically gave me exercises to be ready for it (and it actually happened on one of our rounds of touch-and-gos).

I only do straight-in approaches to uncontrolled fields when nobody else is around. If there is someone in the pattern, I generally stay high, establish where that person is (preferably communicate with him/her until one of us has the other in sight), and then enter the pattern as appropriate. Safety remains compromised.

At a controlled field, you WILL get told to do straight in, or else get told to just establish a base leg (no downwind). Nothing wrong with doing that anywhere else, just keep on the radio.
Click to expand...
Yes, the student was ready. But, as I've said, the standards in the AIM were established for good reason. Why ignore them? We went through this in a long thread about eight months ago.

Straight-in approaches are ok for the instrument or heavier traffic that may be more difficult to manipulate into the pattern. But, that's clearly not an impossible feat for faster aircraft. At the very least, make reasonable calls for the benefit of existing traffic such as 10, 5, 3 and 1 mile on final. Make it easy for other traffic to know where to be looking.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
At CXO, we had a Lear 60 and a Hawker 800 that regularly entered the pattern, properly and flew tighter than the idiots that were being taught at a 141 school on the field. So, I'd not mind at all.
Click to expand...

Does all that pattern activity fly at G5 speeds?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
Straight-in approaches are ok for the instrument or heavier traffic that may be more difficult to manipulate into the pattern. But, that's clearly not an impossible feat for faster aircraft. At the very least, make reasonable calls for the benefit of existing traffic such as 10, 5, 3 and 1 mile on final. Make it easy for other traffic to know where to be looking.
Click to expand...

Would a call in this format be reasonable:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
(NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Does all that pattern activity fly at G5 speeds?
Click to expand...
According to the Lear 60 pilot, he flew downwind at 140 and turned final at 110. All of his pattern was within a mile of the centerline and threshold. I have no clue what his normal numbers were but those seem to work for him. I don't know what the 800 flew at.

I'm not sure why your standard is a G-V. One would not have made it out since we had only a 5,000 foot runway at the time. The Hawker had only two crew members and two passengers that I ever saw and very little else onboard. The Lear had usually just the pilot and owner, occasionally a second passenger. The owner flew right seat.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Would a call in this format be reasonable:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
(NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN.
Click to expand...
More than reasonable. Make other calls at three and one, it's a lot safer for others in the pattern for that runway or a different runway in use. As a good example, you can reference ILS 13 HYI.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
Yes, they announced and entered on a right pattern... WITH active traffic on a standard left pattern. You're telling me this is proper? Not in a million years would I agree with that.
Click to expand...

Not to demean you and I have felt that pain as the student pilot but I live at a busy non-towered airport. Here the rules.

1) Every runway, we have two, 4-22 and 10-28, is "the active".

2) We have Coast Guard and Border Patrol Helicopters, they usually announce but can pop up anywhere. They will "normally" not use the same runway as the fixed wings are.

3) We have a lot of Canadian GA and International flights land to clear customs. The GA boys like right handed patterns and call for "Traffic in the area" and Weather advisors. They will also be at a loss to find customs and sit stumped on the ramp. Instructions on the AWOS of course.

4) When there are students in the pattern expect them to practice engine out 180's and crosswind landings to the non wind aligned runway. Hell a number of times i've done the land on 4, 28, 22, 10 then back to 4.

5) The business aircraft will use 4-22 exclusively as 10-28 is probably to short. The canadians will use 28 as customs is at the approach end and they want to head west anyways, they just came from Canada why fly east or north?

6) The IFR guy's will be on the ILS 4 or VOR coming in from the NE. Strange as a VFR pilot I was taught to come in from practice area over the Golf course which is a perfect setup for a 45 entry into the downwind of 4. That happens to be where the FAF on the VOR-A approach is.

7) In summer watch out for the ultralights and homebuilts that are running around NORDO.

8) Then if you have all that handled you run into the idiot's.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Would a call in this format be reasonable:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
(NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN.
Click to expand...
Lifted from AIM 4-1-9(g)(6)(c), of course. I recall another AIM paragraph (but couldn't find it when I went looking just now) that recommends pilots on instrument approaches also state their location in relation to the airport so that VFR pilots can know where they are too, for example, "Fairmont traffic, Zodiac 55ZC, MONTZ inbound, six mile final, descending through 3200, practice ILS 31 approach, Fairmont." A few more words bring everyone in on the game.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Would a call in this format be reasonable:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
(NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's reasonable to expect a non-IR PP, no less a Student Pilot, to know where any IFR fixes are. In addition, whether it's practice or really under IFR isn't significant to VFR traffic, but the airplane's intentions (low approach, full stop, etc) would be, as well as providing more information. Thus, I think the following might be somewhat more appropriate:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
FIVE MILES SOUTH, INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) LOW APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN

And Felix and Jesse should be ashamed of themselves for their bad theater performance above -- they both need on-line acting lessons before they will be believable.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

"got him on the fishfinder".....

The expense of it all....

The pilots that don't take it seriously and screw things up for the rest of us...

Chicago Tracon...

All counterbalanced by the fun, comaraderie, and utility of it all....
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
According to the Lear 60 pilot, he flew downwind at 140 and turned final at 110. All of his pattern was within a mile of the centerline and threshold. I have no clue what his normal numbers were but those seem to work for him. I don't know what the 800 flew at.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a "No." Are you starting to see the problem?

I'm not sure why your standard is a G-V. One would not have made it out since we had only a 5,000 foot runway at the time.
Click to expand...

You didn't specify an airport, you wrote, "I'm not fond of straight in approaches at airports where there is a lot of activity in the pattern."
 
Last edited:
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Ad hoc flight following? How so?
Click to expand...
It's telling the guys his way to look out for him on the way up and out the pattern?

Freq congestion permitting I've done it before, but only if I'm going to penetrate or come close to their (imaginary) d-space. Never done it from 4000' AGL though. Corona, CA (AJO) is a good example. With weather other airspace, & a pass (sorta) a lot of traffic gets squeezed into a funnel that sometimes pass close to downwind and/or 45 entries to downwind. A few position reports and coordination helps to keep us transiting guys away from those coming in or out.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
I'll take that as a "No." Are you starting to see the problem?

I'm not sure why your standard is a G-V. One would not have made it out since we had only a 5,000 foot runway at the time.
Click to expand...

You didn't specify an airport, you wrote, "I'm not fond of straight in approaches at airports where there is a lot of activity in the pattern."
Click to expand...
Actually, I did in the following post. I just didn't place a link for anyone's convenience. In the first post, I wasn't aware you were concerned about a specific location.

The AIM provides standards. Those standards may change somewhat from one airport to another as specified in the AFD.

As far as all aircraft being the same speed as a bizjet, I think that was a silly question to be seeking out the answer. The point is, adopt the standards established and everyone will be a lot safer in the pattern.

With regard to Ron's post, yes... the distance out is more important than the actual FAF. Not everyone going into HYI is going to know where GARYS is located. While Steven's description works for someone who knows and has flown the approach, the distance out on final is more meaningful for all parties using the airport.

With regard to Ray's post, HYI is getting more and more busy. For some reason, SAT hates to deal with practice approaches anywhere in their airspace. Maybe it's run by former Chicago controllers? AUS is friendly to practice but when it gets too busy and unless you're inbound full stop, they may send you to HYI or you'll fly vectors until they can work you in with a missed in mind.

That airport also has a local operator using Metroliners and Dornier 328's for both freight and passenger charter. While everyone else is using 17 (most common for the predominate winds), they like to come in on 8/26 so they can have a shorter taxi distance. Everyone else, be damned.

HYI is getting busy enough, it's slated to have a tower in the next year.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Ron Levy said:
I don't think it's reasonable to expect a non-IR PP, no less a Student Pilot, to know where any IFR fixes are.
Click to expand...

Never? Below is a call in the same format. Should a non-IR PP, or even a Student Pilot, at his home drome of KCMX, have any problem with this announcement?

"Houghton County traffic, Sabreliner one two three four alpha GALEY inbound descending through two thousand five hundred ILS approach runway three one Houghton County."


In addition, whether it's practice or really under IFR isn't significant to VFR traffic, but the airplane's intentions (low approach, full stop, etc) would be, as well as providing more information. Thus, I think the following might be somewhat more appropriate:

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
FIVE MILES SOUTH, INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) LOW APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN
Click to expand...
The problem with that is other pilots don't know how Cessna 2143Q determined he was five miles south. It could be just an estimate, and many pilots are very poor at estimating distance. If a pilot states he's over a known fix I trust him to be there, I don't trust guesses.

Personally, I prefer the fix be stated followed by the distance:

"Sabreliner one two three four alpha GALEY inbound, four miles southeast, descending through two thousand five hundred ILS approach runway three one."
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
Actually, I did in the following post.
Click to expand...

Which was posted after I picked G5 as an example.

I just didn't place a link for anyone's convenience. In the first post, I wasn't aware you were concerned about a specific location.
Click to expand...
My question applied to all airports where you're not fond of straight in approaches, I believe that's "airports where there is a lot of activity in the pattern."

As far as all aircraft being the same speed as a bizjet, I think that was a silly question to be seeking out the answer. The point is, adopt the standards established and everyone will be a lot safer in the pattern.
Click to expand...
I think it's safer not to mix aircraft of widely disparate speeds. You obviously disagree.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
My question applied to all airports where you're not fond of straight in approaches, I believe that's "airports where there is a lot of activity in the pattern."
Click to expand...
I'm not fond of them at any airport. Just because it's accepted doesn't mean it should happen.

I think it's safer not to mix aircraft of widely disparate speeds. You obviously disagree.
Click to expand...
That's unrealistic. Every pilot has to learn to deal with a mix of traffic at different speeds. Our students get a good dose of that flying out of a busy Class C airport. But, they have the added safety measure of a tower and TRACON looking out. That's not so at HYI. While I insure my students are better prepared for such conditions, many are not.

When I was speaking with a school back near Atlanta, they were thrilled I had so much experience around Atlanta Class B. He told me he had several instructors who were afraid to fly with students to their other location in the middle of Atlanta. That one threw me for a loop.

One could say I put primary students at risk by flying them in IMC during electronic navigation practice. I see it as a good thing to do as they find out what it's really like to be in the clouds with strict limitations on navigation. As a result, I have primary students with more actual instrument conditions logged than half the active instrument instructors in the Phoenix valley.

As students progress, you expose them to more and more. You prepare them for as many possible issues as they may face when turned loose with a ticket. Unfortunately, that's not often done. Those would be the instructors and schools that teach for limited liability rather than for safety.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

jmaynard said:
On 122.8? Nobody's in a position to do anything when he disappears, or even know if he has.
Click to expand...

That part is irrelevant because that isn't the reason for the call.

Ok. I understand now that I thought about it. I suppose it was meant not as flight following but as a situational awareness thing for people in the pattern. But if I were in the pattern, I wouldn't care too much about someone overflying 3 and 4 thousand feet above me.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Greg Bockelman said:
That part is irrelevant because that isn't the reason for the call.

Ok. I understand now that I thought about it. I suppose it was meant not as flight following but as a situational awareness thing for people in the pattern. But if I were in the pattern, I wouldn't care too much about someone overflying 3 and 4 thousand feet above me.
Click to expand...

Unless he's dropping jumpers - which is a whole different call!
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
I'm not fond of them at any airport. Just because it's accepted doesn't mean it should happen.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't it happen?

That's unrealistic. Every pilot has to learn to deal with a mix of traffic at different speeds.
Click to expand...
What's unrealistic about it? Why should aircraft of widely disparate speeds mix it up in the pattern if it can be avoided?

Our students get a good dose of that flying out of a busy Class C airport. But, they have the added safety measure of a tower and TRACON looking out.
Click to expand...
How does the tower and TRACON at that busy Class C handle a high performance arrival when there's a lot of activity in the pattern? Do they have it join the pattern?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

When a tower controller clears a plane "into position and hold", the response is "On the hold". Does that even make sense?
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

roncachamp said:
Why shouldn't it happen?

What's unrealistic about it? Why should aircraft of widely disparate speeds mix it up in the pattern if it can be avoided?
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing this point any further. Or, at least provide a valid argument against mixed traffic.

How does the tower and TRACON at that busy Class C handle a high performance arrival when there's a lot of activity in the pattern? Do they have it join the pattern?
Click to expand...
There is no standard pattern in Bravo's or Charlie's. All traffic is vectored as needed for sequencing. That can be anything from entering on a left-downwind to going north for fifteen miles or so then brought back in on 17L.

For us small planes, it could be doing left-360s over downtown Austin waiting for seven airliners to land before crossing over 17R and landing on 17L. This was a recent occurrence.

Are you presenting sincere questions or just arguing? I'm sensing the latter.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

KennyFlys said:
According to the Lear 60 pilot, he flew downwind at 140 and turned final at 110.
Click to expand...
I doubt that. If he did do that it was pretty unsafe as it would have probably been at least 10 knots slower than the ref speed at the lightest weight possible.

KennyFlys said:
I don't know what the 800 flew at.
Click to expand...
The 800 probably could fly in the 110 range if it was light. Still that's almost twice as fast as the speed on final for normal trainers.

I'm in the camp with the people who think that a straight-in is safer in a fast airplane than a pattern with a lot of slower traffic. Also, if you are going to fly a pattern it's better to stay outside all the slower airplanes because you will be overtaking them, and at a pretty high closure rate too.
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Ghery said:
Nxxxxx, position and hold.


That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
Except in Canada and Mexico (and probably a lot of other places) it's "Line up and wait". ;)
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Use a different example. The V will slow down and do anything you want.

roncachamp said:
Would you be happier with a G5 joining all that pattern activity?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Aviation Aggrivations

Rotor&Wing said:
What I'm referring to is someone who is a private pilot or recreational flyer that insist on being addressed as Captain. Also in this group are the rating collectors that really never worked in commercial aviation or flew anything bigger than a light twin.
Click to expand...


That is rather funny, along with dork bars in GA. I have flown singles bigger than most light twins and usually the only people who call me captain can't pronounce my name... But then, I have earned the title....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top