Disturbing new trend?

James331 said:
Has the FCC ever actually brought and won a case against a pilot for this?



What can they do anyway?
Click to expand...


Don't know on whether or not they've done it.

A typical FCC action that is serious enough that they care against an individual, will be to issue a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and then garnish your wages.

They're pretty busy finding all the idiots that interfere maliciously with things like Public Safety dispatch channels and the like, and probably don't give a rat's butt about semi-poorly identified users of spectrum who are otherwise using it for a legal purpose and not causing any specific complaints to be filed.

They have, however, gone after events where there is a common event that happens regularly and a fixed station license isn't applied for, and some dude is walking around with a handheld talking to aircraft on something other than the CTAF. Especially if they get a complaint of interference from a coordinated user of that same frequency.
 
denverpilot said:
Don't know on whether or not they've done it.

A typical FCC action that is serious enough that they care against an individual, will be to issue a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and then garnish your wages.
Click to expand...

You'd get a notice of violation first. Against either (or both) the station license or the operator's license if you have one.

NAL tends to be issued with the licensee is recalcitrant or repeat. It's not worth the effort for such a minor violation.

If the station is unlicensed, the FCC has restrictions that compel them to act in a different manner - usually some kind of unlicensed warning letter. Repeated unlicensed acts that cause problems for a safety (or other) radio service can be referred to the US Attorney, and if severe enough will result in a warrant, which brings in the US Marshals. If you're on the receiving end of a Marshal's visit... well, let's just say you don't want to be there.

They're pretty busy finding all the idiots that interfere maliciously with things like Public Safety dispatch channels and the like, and probably don't give a rat's butt about semi-poorly identified users of spectrum who are otherwise using it for a legal purpose and not causing any specific complaints to be filed.

They have, however, gone after events where there is a common event that happens regularly and a fixed station license isn't applied for, and some dude is walking around with a handheld talking to aircraft on something other than the CTAF. Especially if they get a complaint of interference from a coordinated user of that same frequency.
Click to expand...

Priority to public safety and serious complaints.
 
OverTQ said:
I find lengthy airplane descriptions in lieu of standard phraseology to be annoying. I don't care what color your plane is, I look for a white and blue plane the exact same way that I look for a white and red plane.

The idea is to have a brief and unique callsign so two different aircraft aren't using the same callsign. Model ("Skyhawk" or "Cub") and a few numbers serves that purpose well.
Click to expand...

+1. I don't care about colors. When I see aircraft in the air, they pretty much look like glints of light and shadows, not paint schemes.

When I'm a few miles out and can't see you anyway, I'm trying to build a model in my mind of where everyone is and where they're headed. I want to hear enough information to clearly understand which calls are unique aircraft. If two people are calling "Cessna on left downwind", I don't know if that's two aircraft or two pilots in the same aircraft. If one calls "Cessna 123" and the other calls "Cessna XYZ", then I know there are two different planes I need to be aware of.

I call myself Cherokee xxx (last 3 digits of my tail#) at untowered fields.
 
The first time I noticed that people were using their tail numbers at an untowered field, it was one that had a large flight school where all the planes were Skyhawks with sequential tail numbers, followed by the same two alpha characters. It certainly made good sense for them to use their tail numbers. However, it was quite some time before I learned that the habit of using colors instead of tail numbers was wrong according to the AC I quoted above. A good argument can be made for using either one in their own special circumstances.

I agree with the OP that the most important thing to do is to communicate clearly in order to keep communication happening.
 
My wife pointed out that we use tail numbers for consistency when there are large numbers of planes in the pattern. In those circumstances, just saying "Cessna" or "White Cherokee" won't do.

I countered that in those circumstances, we are most likely using the sound of their voices to keep everyone straight, not their N-number, as we build the mental picture of where everyone is in the local sky. She concurred.

This conversation took place at 2000' over the island last night, as we watched the sunset.

Look what you guys are doing to my marriage. ;)
 
Last edited:
What I like is "Ada traffic, Spamcan 123, 3 miles east, 2000 feet descending Ada."

Followed by "Ada traffic, Cessna 789, 3 miles east, 2000 feet inbound for Ada."

Oh spit!
 
docmirror said:
What I like is "Ada traffic, Spamcan 123, 3 miles east, 2000 feet descending Ada."

Followed by "Ada traffic, Cessna 789, 3 miles east, 2000 feet inbound for Ada."

Oh spit!
Click to expand...

Sometimes I do that just to mess with people. Especially when I'm not even at that airport, but just on frequency.

I usually use the tail number six papa charlie.
 
OverTQ said:
I find lengthy airplane descriptions in lieu of standard phraseology to be annoying. I don't care what color your plane is, I look for a white and blue plane the exact same way that I look for a white and red plane.

The idea is to have a brief and unique callsign so two different aircraft aren't using the same callsign. Model ("Skyhawk" or "Cub") and a few numbers serves that purpose well.
Click to expand...

^^^Ding, ding, ding: winner!

I count the number of different call-signs in the pattern. Don't care about your color. Just "Skyhawk 39M" or "Cherokee 6YZ" would be perfect.

I chuckle every time I hear the "yellow RV" call-sign at a local airport. But, its brief and descriptive. But, "Green and White Cessna 172 on 3 mile final" with no airport name is a PITA. Especially with two non-towered airports on the same CTAF freq and both are so busy, you can hardly get a word in edgewise.
 
I use my aircraft name and part of my tail number (instead of saying "Skyhawk 4912g", I'll say "Skyhawk 12g").
 
timwinters said:
I'd be surprised if any pilot who is unfamiliar with your plane would understand that "AB" is a tail number reference.

My first few calls are "Skylane5057D". Not much effort, provides the info needed, and is FCC legal. Subsequent calls (turning base, final, clear, etc.) are simply "57D," legal or not.
Click to expand...

I thought it was D***head 5750D. :rofl:


I will always say our full callsign unless I'm in our local area. In our local area I'll just say our number and drop the letters at the end.

Half the time I'll just say the name of the person I'm talking to. You lose track of who's in what and where after 5 flight slots. I remember voices so I'll just say "Hey Bob, I'm over the river where are you?" or "Alex, no rush we're just now turning base". Sometimes I'll get a tail # response, but mostly a double click or their reply is enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top