Is ATITAPA EVER appropriate?

gismo said:
AFaIK there's movement underfoot to do just that. At this time the frequency allocations for CTAF at uncontrolled airports appears to be based on the time when radios had individual crystals for each channel. BTW there really aren't 720 (or 760) channels available in any given area, part of the allocation plan is to prevent the use of adjacent channels in the same vicinty since this often results in problems. Still, you'd think we could get 20-30 channels instead of the three primarily in use today.
Click to expand...
I have seen some movement of CTAFs for a few local airports off of 122.8 to 123 and 123.05. This has helped a lot. But even so, VHF propagation being what it is AND having a really nice ground plane we often get killed by radio traffic from Michigan. I am sure we are also killing them from time to time. We really need more CTAFs and a real frequency reuse plan that takes into account propagation and interference issues. IOW netowrk planning.
 
I'd like to see the FAA start to violate pilots for using ATITAPA, primarily because it could confuse those that don't speak English natively that are flying in our airspace. It is not standard, it conveys no information and it obtains nothing a STANDARD call wouldn't have.

Can we petition to have it codified?
 
gismo said:
AFaIK there's movement underfoot to do just that. At this time the frequency allocations for CTAF at uncontrolled airports appears to be based on the time when radios had individual crystals for each channel. BTW there really aren't 720 (or 760) channels available in any given area, part of the allocation plan is to prevent the use of adjacent channels in the same vicinty since this often results in problems. Still, you'd think we could get 20-30 channels instead of the three primarily in use today.
Click to expand...

There are 7 now according to 4-1-11:
122.700
122.725
122.800
122.975
123.000
123.050
123.075

They change several of the freqs around here and help the congestion alot. Still can be a problem on busy days. I agree there should more and I'd like to see more practice area air-to-air channels too. They put the Air Force cadets on 122.75 around COS and PUB and they have good radios.:nonod:​
 
smigaldi said:
We really need more CTAFs and a real frequency reuse plan that takes into account propagation and interference issues. IOW netowrk planning.
Click to expand...
Oh boy. Frequency coordination in aviation. Time for me to run screaming. :hairraise: :eek: :eek: :eek:

(For those of you who don't know, I'm chairman of the Minnesota Repeater Council, the amateur radio frequency coordination body for Minnesota, and past president of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council. Frequency coordination is a contentious, highly political process.)
 
jmaynard said:
Oh boy. Frequency coordination in aviation. Time for me to run screaming. :hairraise: :eek: :eek: :eek:

(For those of you who don't know, I'm chairman of the Minnesota Repeater Council, the amateur radio frequency coordination body for Minnesota, and past president of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council. Frequency coordination is a contentious, highly political process.)
Click to expand...
Yeah it can be a PIA. But it would have helped stop having three airport all on 122.8 that are within 20NM of each other!! At least, thankfully, one of those airport managers got an idea and moved his CTAF to the barely used 123.05


On another note...Jay how are you guys dealing with D-STARs? Any problems? Ill Repeater Council is having a heck of a time. We have tons of under used analog pairs in the metro areas and now a bunch of D-STAR stations are wanting access and there is a real technology jihad happening.

I am a past TC in the Ill section of the ARRL
 
smigaldi said:
Yeah it can be a PIA. But it would have helped stop having three airport all on 122.8 that are within 20NM of each other!! At least, thankfully, one of those airport managers got an idea and moved his CTAF to the barely used 123.05
Click to expand...
There are lots of airports around here on 122.8, and few on the other channels. I don't know why they don't spread them around, either.


On another note...Jay how are you guys dealing with D-STARs? Any problems? Ill Repeater Council is having a heck of a time. We have tons of under used analog pairs in the metro areas and now a bunch of D-STAR stations are wanting access and there is a real technology jihad happening.
Click to expand...
The Illinois Repeater Council is leading the US in one method of dealing with D-Star: packing two repeaters into one analog channel. Unfortunately, that assumes that there are analog channels to pack them into. I believe there is going to be a tipping point where analog repeaters are taken down in favor of D-Star systems, but it won't happen right away. It's going to be next to impossible to tell an existing owner of an underused repeater to take his system down to make room for others: that's a guaranteed lawsuit waiting to happen, and I know of no coordinator wealthy enough to take on that risk unprepared.

One thing we're moving toward in Minnesota - and we're leading the whole country, as best as I can tell - is that we're moving to a coordination process based strictly on repeater coverage modeling. Right now, my 2-meter D-Star module has protection for 120 miles, yet it serves a tiny fraction of that area. That's just plain insane. Once we move to a modeling-based coordination process, I expect sufficient new pairs to open up to allow dealing with the pent-up demand for D-Star, and that will get us closer to the tipping point.
 
Palmpilot said:
Take a look at this and see if it doesn't explain something about this thread:


Quote:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Abigail Adams - 1787

I'm not necessarily against rebellion - in fact, I'm somewhat rebellious myself - but I think it has its place, and in the cockpit is hardly ever that place, barring an emergency.
Click to expand...

Well, then having a little rebellion here on the ground seems a lot better then, doesn't it?

And I thought a good pilot is always learning. Who knew ALL the answers were simply in the AIM.
 
I agree, discussion on the ground is good, rebellious or otherwise.
 
smigaldi said:
How do you know it makes people that would otherwise not speak up, actually speak up? Those that are not speaking up are silent, those that are making announcements probably will continue to make announcement. I have told you and others have stated on here that they are not responding to ATITAPA, they continue to make their regular announcements. At best ATITAPA get a few to respond that would already have been responding. When they few do respond they all step on each other on the frequency.

So what is the up side of this?

ATITPA does NOT get anyone who would not respond to respond.

ATITAPA DOES clog the frequency

ATITAPA is NOT to be used per the AIM
Click to expand...

Simple...over a decade living in the south, years in law enforcement and management, and just being student of human psychology.

I rarely, if ever, say the phrase, however I have seen, errr well heard, what the wonders of the word "please" does. Sorry Scott, I just disagree with you on this. It seems you are operating in the theoretical perfect world and I am telling you of my personal experiences in the real world.

I HAVE seen people NOT make calls even after someone else calls out a position, but as soon as ATITAPA is said, they speak up. *shrug*
 
You guys are getting your panties in a wad over something that's not that bad. I've heard far worse on the radio. At least the objectionable phrase that is not to be uttered has something to do with the flight at hand, versus Bubba and Billy-Bob's fishing trip (a real radio conversation heard by me, and names not changed to protect anything).
 
jtheune said:
I guess we are just going to have to disagree on this one. I think that if asked nicely most people respond nicely. As for blocking traffic on the radio, that's a worse case. Why would someone ask for traffic if the radio is busy and everyone is reporting right away? Yes maybe they are jerks and just pop up and start with ATITAPA but but the point I was repeatedly trying to make is that there are times when trying to get a picture of the traffic is a valid request.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

The FAA's opinion is really the only one that matters in this case and they have said not to use it.

My opinion is that going against the FAA's opinion because you think it’s wrong shows poor aeronautical judgment.

Missa
 
Disagreeing with a bureaucracy as dysfunctional as the FAA is not in and of itself a sign of poor judgement.
 
steingar said:
Disagreeing with a bureaucracy as dysfunctional as the FAA is not in and of itself a sign of poor judgement.
Click to expand...

Correct, Disagreeing is not. Disagreeing and ignoring their oppinion in the air is. Re-read my post, I said going agianst the FAA's oppinion shows poor judgment (not disagreeing with it)
 
Last edited:
Speaking of CTAF frequency assignment, I'd love to see one universal "backup CTAF" dedicated frequency assigned (just like you have 121.5 for emergencies or 122.0 for Flight Watch), so pilots in the area have a frequency they can use when some yahoo's PTT is stuck and nobody can communicate intentions. ;-) Just a thought. Who can make that happen?
 
smigaldi said:
Yeah it can be a PIA. But it would have helped stop having three airport all on 122.8 that are within 20NM of each other!! At least, thankfully, one of those airport managers got an idea and moved his CTAF to the barely used 123.05


I am a past TC in the Ill section of the ARRL
Click to expand...

We have one airport that I know of in western Washington on 123.05 and 1 or 2 on 122.9. All the others are on 122.8 and it is a mess on a nice weekend day.

I am an ARRL TA. Totally unrelated to this thread, however.

And I love that reply, "You are not alone." I'm going to have to remember that one. :D
 
Missa said:
Correct, Disagreeing is not. Disagreeing and ignoring their oppinion in the air is. Re-read my post, I said going agianst the FAA's oppinion shows poor judgment (not disagreeing with it)
Click to expand...

Negative. The FAA is one of the worst bureaucracies in the government, and has gotten more things wrong than I can imagine. If one disagrees with their pronouncements one is showing independent thought. If one contravenes the FARs, one shows poor judgement.

Look, people on here have said they want guns in their possession because it makes them feel safe, even though many of us live and work in worse places and feel safe without. So what? We have affirmed their right to do what they want because it gives them a sense of security. It may even be a false sense of security, but so what? Its their false sense of security, and they are entitled.

If a pilot feels more safe by announcing the phrase of neverending evil, so what? If there is frequency congestion it is unlikely to spring from so many people using the phrase that shall not be said. There is lots of frequency congestion here, but not from the phrase of doom. Some of you East coast or Florida people can chime in on that one.

I follow the rules scrupulously, but I am absolutely against any idiot dysfunctional government bureaucracy telling me what I can and cannot say to preserve my safety. Similarly, the opinions of other pilots are just that, opinions. It's my six in the cockpit and I'll have the final word on what is and isn't safe.
 
smigaldi said:
attachment.php


;) ;)
Click to expand...

I reiterate.
 
How does a discussion of the subject of the original post fail in its relevance?
 
steingar said:
Negative. The FAA is one of the worst bureaucracies in the government, and has gotten more things wrong than I can imagine. If one disagrees with their pronouncements one is showing independent thought. If one contravenes the FARs, one shows poor judgement.
Click to expand...

Careful. You'll upset the FAA worshipers here.
 
steingar said:
Negative. The FAA is one of the worst bureaucracies in the government, and has gotten more things wrong than I can imagine. If one disagrees with their pronouncements one is showing independent thought. If one contravenes the FARs, one shows poor judgement.

Look, people on here have said they want guns in their possession because it makes them feel safe, even though many of us live and work in worse places and feel safe without. So what? We have affirmed their right to do what they want because it gives them a sense of security. It may even be a false sense of security, but so what? Its their false sense of security, and they are entitled.

If a pilot feels more safe by announcing the phrase of neverending evil, so what? If there is frequency congestion it is unlikely to spring from so many people using the phrase that shall not be said. There is lots of frequency congestion here, but not from the phrase of doom. Some of you East coast or Florida people can chime in on that one.

I follow the rules scrupulously, but I am absolutely against any idiot dysfunctional government bureaucracy telling me what I can and cannot say to preserve my safety. Similarly, the opinions of other pilots are just that, opinions. It's my six in the cockpit and I'll have the final word on what is and isn't safe.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole.

"Any Traffic In The Pattern Please Advise" an awkward, highflautin' phrase that ranks right up with "utilize" and "The gentleman under arrest.." as officialese of the stinkiest order.

To answer the original question: For a pilot, no.
 
It continues to astound me as to how much bandwidth is wasted discussing this most trivial of phrases.
 
To answer the title question:

NO!
 
steingar said:
Negative. The FAA is one of the worst bureaucracies in the government, and has gotten more things wrong than I can imagine. If one disagrees with their pronouncements one is showing independent thought. If one contravenes the FARs, one shows poor judgement.

Look, people on here have said they want guns in their possession because it makes them feel safe, even though many of us live and work in worse places and feel safe without. So what? We have affirmed their right to do what they want because it gives them a sense of security. It may even be a false sense of security, but so what? Its their false sense of security, and they are entitled.

If a pilot feels more safe by announcing the phrase of neverending evil, so what? If there is frequency congestion it is unlikely to spring from so many people using the phrase that shall not be said. There is lots of frequency congestion here, but not from the phrase of doom. Some of you East coast or Florida people can chime in on that one.

I follow the rules scrupulously, but I am absolutely against any idiot dysfunctional government bureaucracy telling me what I can and cannot say to preserve my safety. Similarly, the opinions of other pilots are just that, opinions. It's my six in the cockpit and I'll have the final word on what is and isn't safe.
Click to expand...

The FAR's and the AIM are the rule books for the sky. Wrong or right they keep eveyone on the same page which keeps the skys safer because eveyone knows the play book. If you don't like the playbook you have two options. 1) Quit playing *get out of the sky* 2) lobby and have it changed. But until it's changed you have to play by the play book. Going with #3 ignoring the playbook and doing whatever you want means you are a rouge pilot and I want you no where near me. So please, quit playing.
 
steingar said:
Disagreeing with a bureaucracy as dysfunctional as the FAA is not in and of itself a sign of poor judgement.
Click to expand...
Ever hear of the hazardous attitudes? That's something the FAA wants CFIs to know about. There's one that describes your statement perfectly: antiauthority.
 
nddons said:
After departing the airport on our missed approach, and when we were about 2-3nm from the airport, we heard the Lear pilot announce his position and distance to the airport, and then ask "any traffic in the area please advise." .......

We knew the Lear was approaching the terminal area, and took the opportunity to tell him where we were, and that we would hang around the BAE VOR to the north and give way to him on his approach to the airport. .......
Click to expand...

Emphasis added above. If you hear other traffic announce its position, and you feel the need to announce your own position afterwards, would it make any difference whether the other pilot had requested any traffic to advise? I don't think so. I'd "take the opportunity" no matter what. No need for ATITAPA. Ever, IMO.

Edit: Wow, am I late to the program. My RSS reader made me think this was a new thread and I responded without realizing there were 100+ responses already. :eek: Well, now my 2 cents has been chipped in! :)
 
Last edited:
Missa said:
The FAR's and the AIM are the rule books for the sky. Wrong or right they keep eveyone on the same page which keeps the skys safer because eveyone knows the play book. If you don't like the playbook you have two options. 1) Quit playing *get out of the sky* 2) lobby and have it changed. But until it's changed you have to play by the play book. Going with #3 ignoring the playbook and doing whatever you want means you are a rouge pilot and I want you no where near me. So please, quit playing.
Click to expand...

I don't say ATITAPA, but telling someone to "get out of the sky" over it is giving it way more importance than it deserves, IMO.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't say ATITAPA, but telling someone to "get out of the sky" over it is giving it way more importance than it deserves, IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Missa was telling him to "get out of the sky" because of a propensity to use that phrase. I think she's taking issue with his stance that it's more prudent to ignore the FAA's opinion than to listen to it if you don't like what they say. On that point, she and I are in agreement.
 
Missa said:
The FAR's and the AIM are the rule books for the sky. Wrong or right they keep eveyone on the same page which keeps the skys safer because eveyone knows the play book. If you don't like the playbook you have two options. 1) Quit playing *get out of the sky* 2) lobby and have it changed. But until it's changed you have to play by the play book. Going with #3 ignoring the playbook and doing whatever you want means you are a rouge pilot and I want you no where near me. So please, quit playing.
Click to expand...

In a blatant attempt to lighten the mood, that is funny!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rouge

I assume you meant "rogue"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rogue

:D
 
Yikes! I was going to stay out of this thread but my mentor used it today! And you know what, I think it actually helped us! Dumped by atc 6mi (2 mins by Citation) from destination (pretty quiet non-towered airport). He gave our position and the devil's request. (We would normally listen in ahead but too busy this time, needed both our attentions passing the CCA.)
Yes we could have done a lot of maneuvering and waiting for all to check in, but the respondents were courteous, quick, and immediately gave us the flick at that airport. (Naturally we kept peeled for nordos). We did not assume all would check in. There was plenty of air time for everyone to have their say. No one seemed aggravated, seemed like they expected it and they appreciated its utility. We were able to fit into the flow smoothly as a result. Otherwise it was going to be a lot more hunting and watching, while folks passed the mandatory position reporting places in the pattern. (I swear a 150 can take 5 mins to fly the entire downwind!)

My conclusion: I think it (this topic) may be situational-dependant. At some busy airports, it may be counterproductive. At a lot of the remote airports I use, I think it helps and has no downside!
Just thought I'd add some practical experience with using atitapa to the database.
 
skyflyer8 said:
Emphasis added above. If you hear other traffic announce its position, and you feel the need to announce your own position afterwards, would it make any difference whether the other pilot had requested any traffic to advise? I don't think so. I'd "take the opportunity" no matter what. No need for ATITAPA. Ever, IMO.
Click to expand...
Oh but Kate you are so wrong. Just look at the indepth double blind scientific study that was done to prove otherwise. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

tdager said:
Simple...over a decade living in the south, years in law enforcement and management, and just being student of human psychology.

I rarely, if ever, say the phrase, however I have seen, errr well heard, what the wonders of the word "please" does. Sorry Scott, I just disagree with you on this. It seems you are operating in the theoretical perfect world and I am telling you of my personal experiences in the real world.

I HAVE seen people NOT make calls even after someone else calls out a position, but as soon as ATITAPA is said, they speak up. *shrug*
Click to expand...
Now how can you argue with that logic? ATITAPA is the best thing to ever enter a pilot's vocabulary. It is surprising that there has not been an increase in aircraft mid air collisions since the revision of AIM4.1.9g. I guess that there has not been any thanks to the revolution and anti-authority sentiments of rogue pilots everywhere.

[/sarcasm]
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Yikes! I was going to stay out of this thread but my mentor used it today! And you know what, I think it actually helped us! Dumped by atc 6mi (2 mins by Citation) from destination (pretty quiet non-towered airport). He gave our position and the devil's request. (We would normally listen in ahead but too busy this time, needed both our attentions passing the CCA.)
Yes we could have done a lot of maneuvering and waiting for all to check in, but the respondents were courteous, quick, and immediately gave us the flick at that airport.
Click to expand...

But Dave... How do you know they wouldn't have done so anyway? :dunno: Seriously, that's what people tend to do when a new aircraft checks on frequency regardless of ATITAPA, so why waste the frequency time saying it and make yourself sound silly?

My conclusion: I think it (this topic) may be situational-dependant. At some busy airports, it may be counterproductive. At a lot of the remote airports I use, I think it helps and has no downside!
Click to expand...

Except for making you look bad for going against FAA recommendations, and potentially blocking someone else from calling... I realize that's probably not so much of an issue down by you, but if you get in the habit of saying it, you'll probably say it everywhere, including places where it IS a big issue.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
including places where it IS a big issue.
Click to expand...

I am going to try to break the mold of this thread and say, "You could be right, Kent!"

(I do have to wonder why some apparently mundane topics grasp our emotive center, apparently making us less receptive to others' viewpoints, or to their practical applications! We are strong-willed folks!)

As far as the AIM's recent 'ruling' on the topic...but I have spoken before about how I think that was a terrific example of the government micromanaging aviation! Prohibiting a specific phrase; hard to believe! Just think of what we will have to do, or will have to avoid, in 20 years - if the FAA has their way. Bye-bye aviation; so long, freedoms!
(If a regulatory body is tasked with making safety their only goal, this can only go one direction: increasingly restrictive rules and regulations. Don't think I'm anti-safety! I just wonder what the cost will be, or where it will end.)
 
+1

I don't use it, don't plan to use it, but I'm not going to rip someone who does. We're all pretty fortunate that we have the health and financial resources to fly in the first place, getting our knickers in a knot over a phrase is really pretty trivial and petty.

Fly safe, and smile while doing so,
Trapper John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top