steingar
Taxi to Parking
Personally, I think each pilot should do whatever he or she feels appropriate to maintain his or her safety and not worry about the opinions of a bunch of other crusty old pilots.
Last edited:
In your thinking it is the use of ATITAPA that pushed the bugsmasher to make a radio call? How does that work? I see no magic in the phrase in getting people to talk. What if the bugsmasher was NORDO? The use of that phrase would only serve to give a false sense of security to the user.Because in the first case the the bugsmasher that was 4 miles north of the field and inbound but did not think there would be a issue would hopefully volenteer thier position and the learjet would now know about them while the second case they would not. Also in the second case the bugsmasher may or may not respond to the 5 mile straight in because they did not see a conflict.
I did -- thanks.I think you mean 4-1-9g1.
Because in the first case the the bugsmasher that was 4 miles north of the field and inbound but did not think there would be a issue would hopefully volenteer thier position and the learjet would now know about them while the second case they would not. Also in the second case the bugsmasher may or may not respond to the 5 mile straight in becuase they did not see a conflict.
I am still trying to understand why you think using that term will give you a better picture of the traffic. The term ATITAPA does not invoke some Pavlovian response in pilots to respond. Those that are making calls will mostly make them at a normal time. Those are not making calls will hardly be pursuaded by the request. As Lance and I have said it give the user of the phrase a false sense of security.I was repeatedly trying to make is that there are times when trying to get a picture of the traffic is a valid request.
Because in the first case the the bugsmasher that was 4 miles north of the field and inbound but did not think there would be a issue would hopefully volenteer thier position and the learjet would now know about them while the second case they would not.
Also in the second case the bugsmasher may or may not respond to the 5 mile straight in becuase they did not see a conflict.
I guess we are just going to have to disagree on this one. I think that if asked nicely most people respond nicely.
Even when those actions are counter to what is published in the AIM?Personally, I think each pilot should do whatever he or she feels appropriate to maintain his or her safety and not worry about the opinions of a bunch of other crusty old pilots.
Even when those actions are counter to what is published in the AIM?
There's nobody arguing this statement even a little bit. We all want to get a picture of the traffic.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.
I am still trying to understand why you think using that term will give you a better picture of the traffic. The term ATITAPA does not invoke some Pavlovian response in pilots to respond. Those that are making calls will mostly make them at a normal time. Those are not making calls will hardly be pursuaded by the request. As Lance and I have said it give the user of the phrase a false sense of security.
That is the point. ATITAPA made no difference in your response.5nm from the airport. It was also late dusk/night.
When the Lear gave his position report, with or without the ATITAPA phrase, my self-preservation kicked in,"
Your point?The AIM is advisory, not regulatory in nature.
Here's the scenario: The jet is coming in IFR and is taking to ATC. ATC would turn him over to tower who would tell him of trafffic in the area. But now the tower closes and the jet is turned loose. He switchs to CTAF. He could make a announcement of his position and listen for replies if the other traffic in the area thinks they are in conflict with him. But, 1: this takes time while the various traffic decides if they are in conflict and 2: If the traffic decides they are not in conflict and says nothing the jet will not know about them until they happen to make a annoucnemnt of the next turn or such. Now the jet driver is building a picture in his/her mind of what is going on in the area but it takes a while becuase the traffic may only report themselves as the reach turn points. As I said it's a tough call but in this and only this situation I don't know that I can fault him for wanting to develop a picture of the traffic now rather then later.
Your point?
Are you advocating that we should all just ignore the AIM and do whatever WE think is best for US?
So we should not even bother reading the AIM and just do what we want when we want? Are you really saying there is no information of value and that using the recommendations in the AIM help ensure we are all playing with the same game plan?Yes. It is our lives on the line. We are the last authority on what we do. We are the PIC, not some pinhead in an office writing a book.
I also hate the guys calling "unicom" for the local "active runway, winds and traffic advisory". We don't have a unicom. No FBO with a radio. And even then he should not be giving traffic advisories.
I heard one response that had me rolling.. "you are not alone".. that's all he said.
As I said, that's not what I hear on the radio around here.I think that if asked nicely most people respond nicely.
First of all with the few CTAFs shared between multiple airports, how would the level of radio chatter affect you're need for information? Things could be totally quiet at your airport and very busy at another on the same freq (or vice versa). Second, IME the dreaded ATITA... phrase is virtually always uttered on the offender's first call. Assuming for the moment this call was made shortly after tuning the frequency how would the pilot in question even know how busy the area was? Third, I can think of no situation where "everyone is reporting right away". What you should find is everyone with a radio announcing their position at appropriate times in their flight (e.g. 5 minutes out, pattern entry, most if not all turns, and in most circumstances after clearing the runway for arriving aircraft) as well as whenever a potential conflict needs addressing. As long as you provide the same service there should never be a need for everyone to report to your initial call whether or not you include ATITAPA.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?
Perhaps not, but it certainly tells you what the FAA Flight Standards Service thinks of the use of that call.The AIM is advisory, not regulatory in nature.
I love it when people ask for opinions and then disagree/argue when they don't like the the opinions that they receive.
I'm not sure if your are referring to me, but isn't it educational to ask "why?" every once in a while? Otherwise this forum may as well just turn into an online index to the FAR/AIM.
I totally agree with that. I love the "why" questions. I just don't understand why you still need to attempt to find scenarios for its use when the arguments against are so compelling (especially when you include the AIM recommendation) and the arguments for are so flimsy and based on perfect scenarios.
"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
Perhaps not, but it certainly tells you what the FAA Flight Standards Service thinks of the use of that call.
First of all with the few CTAFs shared between multiple airports, how would the level of radio chatter affect you're need for information?
You do not ...I love it when people ask for opinions and then disagree/argue when they don't like the the opinions that they receive.
Again I ask, how does the phrase ATITAPA magically make other planes give their position reports? Also are those position reports, if given, somehow more magically accurate if a pilot has used the phrase ATITAPA?
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.You would be surprised what the phrase "please advise" will do to make people speak up.
YES...what I am saying, EXACTLY, what I am saying is that something psychological will make people speak up when the word "please" us uttered that they might not otherwise say.
Now that we all have 720 + channel comms, why can't FAA dedicate more CTAF freqs?
It's really a jungle on busy weekends, with multiple uncontrolled airports on the same freq - there are times I hear more squeals from people being stepped on, and dopey ATITAPA calls than actual useful position reports. I really think it's a serious hazard.
Trapper John
I love it when people ask for opinions and then disagree/argue when they don't like the the opinions that they receive.
I don't think the OP (Stan) has been doing the disagreeing, that's coming from a few others that appear to be resistant to the idea that ATITPPA is both unnecessary and contrary to safety.
In my scenario, I had already departed the pattern, and if my reading of the AIM is correct, I had no further responsibility for self-reporting, unless and until I depart the FAF inbound for another approach, OR am simply inbound for a landing. I was neither. However, I was still in view of the airport, and was going to be doing SOMETHING at the VOR once I arrived, which happens to be only 5nm from the airport. It was also late dusk/night.
When the Lear gave his position report, with or without the ATITAPA phrase, my self-preservation kicked in, and not wanting a jet off my rear quarter to not know more precisely where I was and what my intentions were, I volunteered that information. I think many other bugmashers would think "bah, I'm in the clear. No problem" and would not offer any information to the inbound Lear. Which is probably appropriate for the AIM, but doesn't help the Lear pilot much.
Would ATITAPA ensure EVERY traffic spoke up? No. Would ATITAPA help in a NORDO situation? Obviously not. Could ATITAPA cause frequency congestion? Possibly. Would ATITAPA, in some situations, help situational awareness for all involved? I kind of think yes.
I'm not trying to make enemies, nor am I endorsing using the phrase for fear of (a) being in contravention of the AIM, or (b) being looked at as a moron. Remember, I was not the one who used the phrase. However, I do think it's educational to have this discussion, and possibly ask "could the AIM be wrong?"
Now that we all have 720 + channel comms, why can't FAA dedicate more CTAF freqs?
It's really a jungle on busy weekends, with multiple uncontrolled airports on the same freq - there are times I hear more squeals from people being stepped on, and dopey ATITAPA calls than actual useful position reports. I really think it's a serious hazard.
Trapper John
Damn, you got me. It was the others in the thread that were doing most of the disagreeing. I lost track of who was saying what. My apologies, Stan, for my snarky reply. Below is the closest Stan came to saying it was OK.