Even the FAA does ATITAPA

jmaynard

jmaynard

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,487
Location
Fairmont, Minnesota
Display Name
Display name:
Jay Maynard
I was out at KFRM this afternoon, planning to enjoy the gorgeous clear sky and warmer-than-it-has-been temperatures to get some more practice flying in. While I was there, a guy from the FAA drove up to make his monthly check on the VOR/DME's batteries. We talked for a while, and then he drove off. When he got to the runway, he said, on CTAF,

"Fairmont traffic, Maintenance vehicle crossing runway 13/31 from taxiway Bravo to the VOR, any traffic in the area please advise."

I chuckled all the way out to my hangar, right up until I discovered I wasn't going flying for the next few days due to a flat nose tire.
 
jmaynard said:
I was out at KFRM this afternoon, planning to enjoy the gorgeous clear sky and warmer-than-it-has-been temperatures to get some more practice flying in. While I was there, a guy from the FAA drove up to make his monthly check on the VOR/DME's batteries. We talked for a while, and then he drove off. When he got to the runway, he said, on CTAF,

"Fairmont traffic, Maintenance vehicle crossing runway 13/31 from taxiway Bravo to the VOR, any traffic in the area please advise."
Click to expand...

Sure, he hasn't been listening since 5 miles out. ;) There's another situation where the FAA uses ATITAPA and it is perfectly reasonable. I used to hear it all the time:

"Attention all aircraft, local time is 0600 and Timmerman Tower is now open, with class D airspace in effect. Any traffic in the area, please advise." To which there'd usually be a reply of "Timmy tower, chopper 12, 2 miles south, inbound to the north ramp."
 
While I'm OK with tower doing it when signing on, I don't see the need for that truck driver to do it: listen, look, announce crossing, and then cross -- no need for ATITAPA. However, in defense of the driver, the AIM is not required reading for FAA maintenance techs.
 
New flash. If I'm approaching an airstrip, and I'm uncertain, I'll happily say the forbidden words. Either (a) there is no one there, so no harm and no foul or (b) there is someone there who I couldn't see, who is now probably very glad that I am aware of their presence. My eyes are my main detection equipment, but I'll use whatever I have to in a pinch.
 
steingar said:
New flash. If I'm approaching an airstrip, and I'm uncertain, I'll happily say the forbidden words. Either (a) there is no one there, so no harm and no foul or (b) there is someone there who I couldn't see, who is now probably very glad that I am aware of their presence. My eyes are my main detection equipment, but I'll use whatever I have to in a pinch.
Click to expand...
If the other plane isn't making the recommended announcements, and doesn't respond when you make the proper call per the AIM and various AC's, what makes you think the other plane will respond if you add that phrase to your transmission? Perhaps we should add "pretty please with sugar on it" to the ATITAPA call to further encourage those folks? OTOH, use of that phrase makes your transmission on a CTAF (which may well be shared with half a dozen other airports within radio range) that much longer, making it that much harder for people at those other airports to make their own proper calls, thus degrading rather than enhancing safety.

Let's just stick with the book on this one -- it really is the best way to transmit your information without making communication more difficult for others. If others refuse to cooperate, begging is unlikely to change their behavior.
 
I see no reason to use that phrase. Nevermind what the book says on it - Ron's correct. If I'm in the area, I'm making the proper calls. Furthermore, if you call in and there is any doubt, I'll make another call out to make sure you know where I am and what I'm doing.

In other words, I'll advise you if I think you should be advised, whether you ask or not.
 
Another poke at a dead horse, but... even an FAA employee can forget that announcing your position and intentions implies that any traffic which might be a factor should respond... so ATITAPA is not necessary. I still think a lot of people use it because it sounds (to them) more "official" or whatever.

Usually, extraneous words are not a big deal, but when the freq is busy, especially in the air when you're picking up other fields and half of what you're hearing is squealing from people talking on top of each other, ATITAPA is a nuisance, and possibly a hazard, along with transmissions where "who, where, what" gets drawn out into a rambling narrative.

Which leads-again- to another good point about ATITAPA: let's say this driver sees no other traffic and has just turned on the radio seconds earlier. There's a plane taxiing somewhere nearby, two in the pattern, one departing the pattern, and two approaching within ten miles. If they all try to respond dutifully to the ATITAPA, what happens? :D

Compare that to just saying "who, where, what": all the other pilots decide based on that report if they need to alert this driver at that moment. Maybe one will respond, but not necessarily. Makes for a more limbered-up freq., i think.

I never got into ATITAPA but I used to be a big "anyone base or final?" guy... until I found myself relying on that and not really listening and looking. Seeing a plane on short final after deciding to take the active.... and once after being cleared to take the active by a tower- really cured me of that.

I think the same syndrome can be fostered by ATITAPA- it can become like a magic spell that is somehow going to keep you clear of NORDOs, hotshots, and pilots on the wrong freq.... a security blanket, if you will.

All I do now, with very rare exceptions (such as when another pilot's announcement is unclear to me, or when offering a quick greeting or whatever on a quiet day), is say "who, where, what", listen carefully, and scan for traffic as if I were NORDO.
 
You are inbound to an uncontrolled airport and don't get a response to your request.. do you assume that no one else is around?

NO !!
1 - Radios are not required at uncontrolled airports.
2 - The J-3 Cubs hand held radio battery died.
3 - The glider battery is low enough to hear you but not transmit.
4 - You made that call just microseconds before the guy on the ramp turned on his radio and started to taxi. He never heard you.
 
Ron Levy said:
If the other plane isn't making the recommended announcements, and doesn't respond when you make the proper call per the AIM and various AC's, what makes you think the other plane will respond if you add that phrase to your transmission? Perhaps we should add "pretty please with sugar on it" to the ATITAPA call to further encourage those folks? OTOH, use of that phrase makes your transmission on a CTAF (which may well be shared with half a dozen other airports within radio range) that much longer, making it that much harder for people at those other airports to make their own proper calls, thus degrading rather than enhancing safety.

Let's just stick with the book on this one -- it really is the best way to transmit your information without making communication more difficult for others. If others refuse to cooperate, begging is unlikely to change their behavior.
Click to expand...

Because they DO Ron, period.

I have seen it too many times in 2.5 short years of flying.

Someone is dinking along at a small rural airport, quiet, doing their thing....and no, not announcing.

Suddenly someone ASKS if anyone is around and BAM, "sure am, turning downwind to base".

Maybe it IS an area thing, but I simply have heard it more times than I can count on my hands.
 
tdager said:
Because they DO Ron, period.

I have seen it too many times in 2.5 short years of flying.

Someone is dinking along at a small rural airport, quiet, doing their thing....and no, not announcing.

Suddenly someone ASKS if anyone is around and BAM, "sure am, turning downwind to base".

Maybe it IS an area thing, but I simply have heard it more times than I can count on my hands.
Click to expand...

That's what the phrase is for, I guess, but in over 12 years of flying I've never heard it used with that expected result. In my experience, all the other scenarios (wrong freq, not talking, not listening, calling position wrong, clogging the freq with chatter,etc) have been more common. :frown2:


My preference would be for the lone pattern-hopper, assuming they have a working radio, to announce even if they "know" it's just them up there... just my preference. I always announce even if I don't think anyone's nearby... just good practice so I won't forget it when it's really needed.

I have heard ATITAPA in the midst of a lot of CTAF chatter, which has always struck me as odd. But maybe those pilots are doing the same thing: saying it every time just in case.
 
jmaynard said:
I chuckled all the way out to my hangar, right up until I discovered I wasn't going flying for the next few days due to a flat nose tire.
Click to expand...
I had a flat nose tire once. It was right after putting in a new tube and tire. I was very annoyed but I pumped it up, did not fly that day. Came back the next day and it was still filled so I flew. I never knew why it went flat but it has been fine ever since.

If it would have been low or flat again I would have called maintenance on Monday when they got in. Any idea why you got the flat and did you try pumping it up?
 
tdager said:
Someone is dinking along at a small rural airport, quiet, doing their thing....and no, not announcing. Suddenly someone ASKS if anyone is around and BAM, "sure am, turning downwind to base".
Click to expand...
I've been hearing that for 40 years -- without the ATITAPA (a fairly recent invention). As soon as someone announces their position, the first guy starts talking. In all those years, I've never heard someone respond to ATITAPA after not responding to a normal position report at the same airport. OTOH, I have heard folks say it repeatedly, blocking up the CTAF at five different airports, without any response at all. I've also heard them say it immediately after three planes in the pattern have made normal position reports. Hence, my agreement with the FAA that you shouldn't waste bandwidth by saying it, and should simply make the reports per the AIM, and spend the rest of the time listening and looking.
 
rottydaddy said:
I have heard ATITAPA in the midst of a lot of CTAF chatter, which has always struck me as odd. But maybe those pilots are doing the same thing: saying it every time just in case.
Click to expand...
In case what? There's someone out there who will talk only if you say those words?:frown2:
 
Ron Levy said:
In case what? There's someone out there who will talk only if you say those words?:frown2:
Click to expand...
Yes... it's the other head on the ATITAPA beast. :D Those conditioned to transmit only when asked are probably the same who use the phrase regularly.


I'll admit, I've personally never had a big problem or been witness to any sort of near-disaster due to the use of that phrase, but I still think it's redundant, and I'm only half-joking about its possible effect on "standard" comms (that is, everyone announces if they can, and everyone listens if they can)... I would definitely be alarmed if I came upon a pattern where pilots were not announcing unless requested to do so (although I know better than to rely only on comms for safety).
 
Yeesh, you guys act that saying that is akin to announcing that you're Pagan cult is offering its first annual baby roast. Get over it. Doesn't hurt anybody. I've heard much more extraneous things n the radio, believe me.
 
steingar said:
I've heard much more extraneous things n the radio, believe me.
Click to expand...
One windmill at a time Don Quixote!

I hate the phrase and agree with Ron that it does use up radio time. I am also not inclined to respond when I hear it either. I will keep making my regular radio calls but I do not feel the need to feed the ATITAPA beast when I hear it.
 
tdager said:
Because they DO Ron, period.

I have seen it too many times in 2.5 short years of flying.

Someone is dinking along at a small rural airport, quiet, doing their thing....and no, not announcing.

Suddenly someone ASKS if anyone is around and BAM, "sure am, turning downwind to base".

Maybe it IS an area thing, but I simply have heard it more times than I can count on my hands.
Click to expand...

Okay, have you ever heard THIS scenario:

123A: "Podunk traffic, 123A, 5 miles south, we'll enter a left crosswind for runway 12, Podunk."
*silence*
123A: "Podunk traffic, 123A, left crosswind, 12, podunk."
*silence*
123A: "Podunk Traffic, 123A, left downwind 12, podunk, any traffic in the area please advise."
456X: "Podunk Traffic, 456X, left base 12, podunk."

I have never needed "ATITAPA" to get someone to speak up - All I have to do is make a report and they'll speak up. I have *NEVER* heard someone stay silent until they heard ATITAPA and only then speak up. I think you're creating an issue that simply doesn't exist - People will speak when spoken to, with or without ATITAPA, thus ATITAPA is completely unnecessary.

steingar said:
Yeesh, you guys act that saying that is akin to announcing that you're Pagan cult is offering its first annual baby roast. Get over it. Doesn't hurt anybody. I've heard much more extraneous things n the radio, believe me.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, where are you from/where do you fly? If you're way out west where the airports are few and far between and/or there's terrain to block far-off radio calls, you may think it's harmless. Come fly in the populated flatlands on a sunny spring Saturday and listen to 122.8 - It's mostly "screeeeeeeech traffic cessna screeeeeeeeech super cub screeeeeeech Mooney screeeeeeech runway screeeeeech any traffic in the screeeeeeeeech." 'round here, every second counts and ATITAPA is not only useless it is harmful. I remember Nick arguing that it was harmless a long time ago, and after he flew up here for the 6Y9 reopening, he had a change of heart.

Plus, how many other things do you ATITAPA folks do that are specifically discouraged by the FAA? :dunno:
 
AIMs a pretty thick book. I bet we all manage something. Even overly wise pilots like yourself.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it does. It unnecessarily blocks the frequency and jams real position reports, and that can get someone killed.
Click to expand...
Ya should have heard the guy at HYI this morning. He was throwing a fit because we were on 17 where winds were initially at 20012. Somewhere along the way, the AWOS stated they were 220 so by his rule we should change to 26. By the sock on the approach end of 17, we had wind about 30 degrees from the right. So, I stuck with 17.

Besides, I wanted my student working with a right crosswind. I'd love to hear the guy if I brought a student in to deal with a tailwind landing.
 
steingar said:
New flash. If I'm approaching an airstrip, and I'm uncertain, I'll happily say the forbidden words. Either (a) there is no one there, so no harm and no foul or (b) there is someone there who I couldn't see, who is now probably very glad that I am aware of their presence. My eyes are my main detection equipment, but I'll use whatever I have to in a pinch.
Click to expand...

c) there is someone there who is making the required position calls on CTAF and had no need for your invitation to say something, so c+) you could just listen without the ATTITPA.
 
KennyFlys said:
Ya should have heard the guy at HYI this morning. He was throwing a fit because we were on 17 where winds were initially at 20012. Somewhere along the way, the AWOS stated they were 220 so by his rule we should change to 26. By the sock on the approach end of 17, we had wind about 30 degrees from the right. So, I stuck with 17.

Besides, I wanted my student working with a right crosswind. I'd love to hear the guy if I brought a student in to deal with a tailwind landing.
Click to expand...

:frown2:
That's a whole 'nother 'nother... I'd rather hear "ATITAPA" than that sort of thing.
I don't give a damn which way anybody lands or takes off, as long as they announce it, and consider everyone else. Was he bawling you out on the CTAF? that makes it even worse.

But some people lack imagination, I guess... not long ago I got my first simulated rope break, and executed a teardrop, away from the paved runway, to land downwind... on the grass, of course. The whole maneuver was in no way in conflict with any other traffic, not even for a moment.
Instructor called it on the handheld as I was rolling out onto final, and suddenly more than one pilot on the CTAF was terribly confused and upset... I'm not sure now if it was because we were suddenly going the "wrong" way, or if they thought they were expected to work downwind also... or both. Weird. I don't expect them to know what a simulated rope break is, but what we were doing shouldn't have mattered to their personal assessment of what direction was best for them to take off or land.

Over-standardizing your thinking can make more trouble than the occasional non-standard procedure, i think.
 
FWIW, the VOR tech in the OP

A. Doesn't listen to the radio anyway, and

B. Deactivates the glideslope antenna for maintenance (without a NOTAM, naturally) when it's 400 OVC and there's an airplane on the ILS.

Much as I hate the ATITAPA phrase, I think this guy is clueless in general.

Of course, that's assuming it's the same guy...I don't know how many of these guys there are in MN.

Fly safe!

David
 
Last edited:
rottydaddy said:
:frown2:
That's a whole 'nother 'nother... I'd rather hear "ATITAPA" than that sort of thing.
I don't give a damn which way anybody lands or takes off, as long as they announce it, and consider everyone else. Was he bawling you out on the CTAF? that makes it even worse.
...I was rolling out onto final, and suddenly more than one pilot on the CTAF was terribly confused and upset... I'm not sure now if it was because we were suddenly going the "wrong" way, or if they thought they were expected to work downwind also... or both. Weird. I don't expect them to know what a simulated rope break is, but what we were doing shouldn't have mattered to their personal assessment of what direction was best for them to take off or land.

Over-standardizing your thinking can make more trouble than the occasional non-standard procedure, i think.
Click to expand...
As one of my instructors, an Air Force vet, said to me early on, "Don't that THAT GUY fly YOUR plane!"

I'll make my own decisions.

That said, on a calm crosswind day when I was on short final after a 5 mile approach and landing opposite to another plane in the pattern on the same runway, I made several announcements to make sure he knew I was landing into him, until he acknowledged that he had the flick. We was cool.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Much as I hate the ATITAPA phrase, I think this guy is clueless in general.
Click to expand...
When I spoke to the airport manager (who's hell on ATITAPA in general, even by the standards of the folks here!), he said that he doesn't say anything to this guy, since he's not gonna listen anyway.

Of course, that's assuming it's the same guy...I don't know how many of these guys there are in MN.
Click to expand...
Dunno. I think this one's based out of Sioux Falls instead of MSP, from comments he's made before.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it does. It unnecessarily blocks the frequency and jams real position reports, and that can get someone killed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely...in YOUR area.

Maybe that is the grist here. This country is freaking HUGE, and things are not the same no matter how hard we pretend they are.

Ron I am sorry, I do not say the phrase, just announce, but it does not bother me to hear it either. Than again we do not have the radio chatter/cross over issues that you do up there.
 
tdager said:
Than again we do not have the radio chatter/cross over issues that you do up there.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity...is your field on 122.8? Mine is, and so are the vast majority of airports around here. That's probably a big part of the problem. There's much less squealing and squawking around here at airports that aren't on 122.8.
 
Home drone is 122.9.

Closest airports to me use 122.725, 123.075, and 122.8. So we are all over the place and rarely have cross-talk/overcrowding issues.
 
Actually, I've never even once used the phrase. But I will maintain the freedom to use any tool at my discretion to maintain my safety. You all can do whatever you want.
 
tdager said:
Because they DO Ron, period.

I have seen it too many times in 2.5 short years of flying.

Someone is dinking along at a small rural airport, quiet, doing their thing....and no, not announcing.

Suddenly someone ASKS if anyone is around and BAM, "sure am, turning downwind to base".

Maybe it IS an area thing, but I simply have heard it more times than I can count on my hands.
Click to expand...

And that same guy tooling around silently wouldn't respond to another airplane announcing his turn from downwind to base (without the "please advise")???
 
steingar said:
When's the last time you read through it?
Click to expand...

I read through it when I got my private in 2005. I also read through it before my BFR in 2007. I also read through it several times during my IR training about 3 months ago.

I've also skimmed / paged through it many many times during my time on PoA.
 
here's the problem. Pilot X sez the dreaded ATITAPA. Then a bunch of folks feed the troll by dutifully repeating the position reports they've already given:

"Cessna XYA on short final 24, Podunk"
"Cessna XYB on downwind 24 Podunk"
"Piper PQR 3 miles out on the 45 for 24 Podunk"
"Luscombe departing 24 Podunk"
"Podunk traffic, Cirrus XAP, what's your active?"

So, you get the ATITAPA and then, if things work as Pilot X hopes, a whole chorus of additional position reports. THen there's always the other thing that bugs me, "What's your active." I had to throw that in for good measure.

On a Saturday or Sunday out in these parts, you get a splitting headache on 123.00 from all of the knuckleheads who don't know how to listen.
 
You IFR training will do a LOT more to increase your safety and effectiveness than reading a book you read before. Re-reading texts increases retention only marginally, and is mostly a waste of time. The only way you can learn from re-reading a text is to read it in order to answer questions, that is to query a text. The answers to your queries will remain with you far longer than just re-reading.
 
steingar said:
You IFR training will do a LOT more to increase your safety and effectiveness than reading a book you read before. Re-reading texts increases retention only marginally, and is mostly a waste of time. The only way you can learn from re-reading a text is to read it in order to answer questions, that is to query a text. The answers to your queries will remain with you far longer than just re-reading.
Click to expand...

I disagree--there is a lot of good information in the AIM that you would *never* run into unless you just read it like a book.

To each their own, when I read something that my life rides on, like the AIM I take it in. I also read about something in the AIM and then dive into other publications like the FAA Instrument Pilot Handbook or Instrument Procedures Handbook, or Pilot handbook.

All I'm saying--is not reading the FAR/AIM is *NOT* an excuse for not COMPLYING with the FAR/AIM. There are *some* excuses, but that sure isn't one of them.
 
steingar said:
You IFR training will do a LOT more to increase your safety and effectiveness than reading a book you read before. Re-reading texts increases retention only marginally, and is mostly a waste of time. The only way you can learn from re-reading a text is to read it in order to answer questions, that is to query a text. The answers to your queries will remain with you far longer than just re-reading.
Click to expand...

The AIM changes fairly regularly..when you look it up on the FAA web site (airports & air traffic tab, air traffic, plans and publications) you will see recent changes. I've been reading it since 1960 and find something new every time. It is a great pub to have at hand when you are in a small room with porcelain fixtures.

Bob Gardner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top