Is ATITAPA EVER appropriate?

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:
jtheune said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jtheune said:
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.
Click to expand...

If there's no conflict, there's no need for a special position report, announcing when you enter the hold would be sufficient, don't you think?

And (this is the part that causes the majority of faith in the need for ATITAPA) you seem to think that most pilots who don't provide their position when appropriate would do so if asked to "advise". I can tell you that this is not the case for most pilots. Most of the ones who silently enter and leave the traffic pattern will ignore the ATITAPA calls as will most of the savvy pilots who announce their positions at each turn and when they see a potential conflict. What I think you're also missing is that both the ATITAPA phrase and any ensuing (but otherwise useless) replies can block the call from the one pilot you need to hear from because you are both aiming for the same space and time (and or blocking needed communicatons between aircraft 30-50 miles away at an airport that uses the same CTAF). And it's the potential for this that really causes most of the ATITAPA haters among us to cringe when we hear it. If there wasn't a bandwidth issue I'd say go ahead and waste your breath, but all too often you're decreasing the safety of everyone else for no gain beyond the false sense of security the transmission gives you.
 
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.
 
jtheune said:
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...
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.
 
jtheune said:
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.
Click to expand...

No really. Look closely. The bugsmasher said the SAME EXACT THING, with or without ATITAPA. And that is the point. Generally, those who have already been on frequency already have the picture in their head of what's going on and will respond in an appropriate order when the jet checks on, REGARDLESS of whether ATITAPA is uttered. And they can start doing it that much sooner if the jet isn't still tying up the frequency saying ATITAPA!

If I hear the jet, and I'm the only guy there, I'll respond with my position and the fact that I haven't heard anyone else on the radio, REGARDLESS of whether ATITAPA is used. If I heard another guy on the radio who's on short final and has his hands full landing his airplane and won't answer (again, regardless of ATITAPA), I'll give my position and add "and there's one on short final."

The point is, ATITAPA changes *nothing* about what other pilots say on the radio, except if it's busy it'll waste frequency time and possibly PREVENT someone from making a traffic call. It does not help, whatsoever.

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.
Click to expand...

Again, do you think ATITAPA will prompt that same pilot to say something? If they're gonna make a position report, they're gonna make a position report. If they don't see a conflict, they won't make a position report even if the jet says ATITAPA.

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.
Click to expand...

Most people will respond nicely even without ATITAPA. IME, someone calling ATITAPA is much more likely to make someone NOT respond than it is to make them respond when they wouldn't have otherwise.
 
jtheune said:
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...
There's nobody arguing this statement even a little bit. We all want to get a picture of the traffic.

Where we differ is that the rest of us don't agree that ATITAPA will do anything at all to help get a picture of the traffic beyond what a simple position announcement would do.
 
smigaldi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?"
 
jtheune said:
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.
Click to expand...

I added the bold to could in your scenario.

How about: the jet should make an announcement of his position and listen for replies.

The other traffic needs to hear from the jet just as much as the jet needs to hear from them. Simple well-established protocal: the new arrival listens, announces, then listens again. Everyone gets the picture (not including the NORDO folks, but lets not go there now).

Your counter-arguments 1 and 2 (in which for some reason the other traffic does not reply) are equally as likely with ATITAPA as with a standard position announcement.

I don't know if this is in "the book" (but I suspect it is, and someone will confirm/correct it soon) before being turned loose by ATC, if they have radar coverage and anyone in the pattern, ATC will inform the inbound IFR plane (but not specific positions or intentions, of course).

Keep it simple and courteous. And safe.

--david
 
And if no one answers, he has a false sense of security that he is alone in the world and misses that NORDO aircraft coming into the traffic pattern because he stops looking.

Every time I hear ATITAPA I cringe and turn down the radio, because 5 people try to be the first to answer and step all over each other. No one benefits. I heard one response that had me rolling.. "you are not alone".. that's all he said.

If I know I am the only one in the traffic pattern, or think I know that I am, I do not answer up right away, I wait for my next regularly scheduled broadcast. "Glider Tow, left base 20L, Jean." or "Glider tow departing 20L, Glider in tow, left turn out".

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.

We do have a CTAF. If they checked their AF/D they would know that.
 
smigaldi said:
Your point?

Are you advocating that we should all just ignore the AIM and do whatever WE think is best for US?
Click to expand...

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.
 
steingar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
BillTIZ said:
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.
Click to expand...

I heard one of those types recently - They were flying to Madison and the guy had no charts, A/FD, nothing. So he asked his buddy to read him all the runway numbers, radio frequencies, etc. over 122.75. :rolleyes:
 
No, I'm saying that we should be our own best judge, since we pay the price if the advice of the AIM does not fully apply to our situation. We should use our brains and best judgement. Anyone with the sense God gave a snowball knows all the answers can't be found in a book.
 
jtheune said:
I think that if asked nicely most people respond nicely.
Click to expand...
As I said, that's not what I hear on the radio around here.

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?
Click to expand...
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.

[/quote]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.[/quote]

Let's say you're enterring a midfield downwind on the beloved 45 and are currently about 12 nm away from the field. If there's a Skyhawk on final doing a full stop landing, why do you want to know where he is? Alternatively, say you're 10 nm out on an IFR approach to the wind favored runway and a Cherokee is rolling halfway down the runway on takeoff (away from you) and he's departing straight out. Need to know about that?

Now for a tougher one. Put yourself on the same 10 nm final and populate the traffic area with the same Skyhawk and Cherokee (doing what they were before) plus a Bonanza that just turned crosswind and is staying in the pattern for another landing. You call in with ATITAPA and they all dutifully respond at the same time. You hear nothing but "squawk, squeel, mummph, squawk, short final". Then the Cherokee repeats his call and steps on the Bonanza again. Meanwhile the three airplanes in the pattern at the airport 25 miles away who've been waiting for a break in this mess all jump in with their normal position reports and by the time they're done with that you're on a mile final with that Bonanza headed your way on base. Wouldn't have been better if the Skyhawk and Cherokee remained quiet and the Bonanza announced his turn from crosswind to downwind along with a query if you wanted him to extend his downwind and come in behind you?
 
I love it when people ask for opinions and then disagree/argue when they don't like the the opinions that they receive.:rolleyes:
 
FlyNE said:
I love it when people ask for opinions and then disagree/argue when they don't like the the opinions that they receive.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
nddons said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
FlyNE said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've only discussed one scenario - a real one, which took place a little less than three hours before my original post.
 
Take a look at this and see if it doesn't explain something about this thread:

"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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps not, but it certainly tells you what the FAA Flight Standards Service thinks of the use of that call.
Click to expand...

I have little doubt there are lots of us who would like to tell the folks at the FAA precisely what we think of them in no uncertain terms.
 
gismo said:
First of all with the few CTAFs shared between multiple airports, how would the level of radio chatter affect you're need for information?
Click to expand...

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
 
smigaldi said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
tdager said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Trapper John said:
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
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
bjohnson said:
Old subject.....I didn't read anything after post #1

.....sigh
Click to expand...

attachment.php


;) ;)
 

Attachments

  • song-chart-memes-online-comments.jpg
    song-chart-memes-online-comments.jpg
    27.2 KB · Views: 144
FlyNE said:
I love it when people ask for opinions and then disagree/argue when they don't like the the opinions that they receive.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
gismo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

nddons said:
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?"
Click to expand...

(FWIW, I still say no in this situation.)
 
Trapper John said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
FlyNE said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not a problem. :cheerswine:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top