NORDO CAP plane

N747JB

N747JB

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
6,248
Location
Atlanta
Display Name
Display name:
John
I had my son fly up and pick me up at Cherokee County yesterday, I dropped the 425 off to fix a fuel leak. The easiest runway to take off from would have been 5, but the local traffic had been using 23 so he taxied across and down to 23 for takeoff. He did his run up and we both looked for traffic, announced he was departing 23 and we began our take off roll. About the time we got to rotation speed, he spots an airplane on final for 5! :eek: He looks at me and I tell him to keep going and turn right after take off to avoid the traffic. They were about a mile from the runway, so not an up close and personal situation, but it spooked him a bit. I held my tongue, I really wanted to blast the CAP pilot, but I didn't want to be the pattern Nazi. Then the CAP pilot asked the Unicom for a radio check. I responded that the first call we heard was after we had lifted off and turned to avoid him. :mad: I don't know why I thought CAP would be better about using the radio? :rolleyes:
It was a good see and avoid lesson for my son and it all worked out fine.
 
Could have had the wrong frequency dialed in or intermittent radio problem, or just plain poor ignorance. Probably thought no one would be flying today and they would just fly to a straight in to 5. Was the wind strong enough to favor 5? If so you should have used 5 if you knew there was no other traffic. Still doesn't excuse the CAP pilot from not using the radio.
 
Last edited:
If he called for a radio check, my guess is that he saw you and realized that perhaps he had the wrong radio, wrong freq (or whatever), fixed the issue, then checked with unicom.

That and the fact that the CAP takes themselves so eye-rollingly seriously makes me think he wasn't just flying around without using the radio.
 
kayoh190 said:
If he called for a radio check, my guess is that he saw you and realized that perhaps he had the wrong radio, wrong freq (or whatever), fixed the issue, then checked with unicom.

That and the fact that the CAP takes themselves so eye-rollingly seriously makes me think he wasn't just flying around without using the radio.
Click to expand...

Actually, there aren't any CAP regulations about radio use for proficiency flights. The only rule is that a radio must be installed.

Most of us would not consider it acceptable, but you have to ask the question, why does it matter the aircraft was CAP? If this was a flying club airplane, would the response be any different?

It sure sounds like there was a problem. I've certainly had radios crap out or be unreadable in CAP aircraft, just like any other. If I know there is a problem, I'll switch to the other radio. But at a nontowered airport, how would you know? You announce yourself and yell at the guy taking off right at you against the rules, and no one responds?

FYI, the OP broke the FAR, not the CAP aircraft. It is the PIC's responsibility to see and avoid, and aircraft on final have the right of way over takeoff traffic. 14 CFR 91.113(g).
 
Oh boy! ^^^

Why didn't the CAP enter for 23? Or go-around if they saw the one taking off on 23? There's an FAR for careless operation also. Bottom line, you weren't there, I wasn't there, so you don't know how the CAP entered the pattern anyway.
 
Last edited:
Agree with above, he didn't have to use the radio, that said he probably was trying to use the radio and just had the volume turned down or wrong comm selected or something.

I wouldn't say CAP guys are any better or worse than the average GA pilot, not really fair, or logical based on history, to expect them to be super pilots.
 
The vast majority of radio problems reported in CAP aircraft turn out to be pilot training issues on the audio panel and STCd (in later models) extra switches for routing the extra radios on board to their appropriate crew member stations.

Bites many a noob doing proficiency or other solo flying square in the ass when they don't know their systems.
 
mscard88 said:
Could have had the wrong frequency dialed in or intermittent radio problem, or just plain poor ignorance. Probably thought no one would be flying today and they would just fly to a straight in to 5. Was the wind strong enough to favor 5? If so you should have used 5 if you knew there was no other traffic. Still doesn't excuse the CAP pilot from not using the radio.
Click to expand...
Wind was fairly light crosswind, other traffic had been using 23 including a one doing crash and dashes. Personally, I would have taken off on 5, because it closer to where we were parked, but he's got about 120 hours and I want him to make decisions. I think he picked the right runway, of course at an uncontrollable field any runway the pilots chooses is the right one for him. :D
 
kayoh190 said:
That and the fact that the CAP takes themselves so eye-rollingly serious...
Click to expand...
Case and point:

MAKG1 said:
Actually, there aren't any CAP regulations about radio use for proficiency flights. The only rule is that a radio must be installed.

Most of us would not consider it acceptable, but you have to ask the question, why does it matter the aircraft was CAP? If this was a flying club airplane, would the response be any different?

It sure sounds like there was a problem. I've certainly had radios crap out or be unreadable in CAP aircraft, just like any other. If I know there is a problem, I'll switch to the other radio. But at a nontowered airport, how would you know? You announce yourself and yell at the guy taking off right at you against the rules, and no one responds?

FYI, the OP broke the FAR, not the CAP aircraft. It is the PIC's responsibility to see and avoid, and aircraft on final have the right of way over takeoff traffic. 14 CFR 91.113(g).
Click to expand...
 
mscard88 said:
Oh boy! ^^^

Why didn't the CAP enter for 23? Or go-around if they saw the one taking off on 23? There's an FAR for careless operation also. Bottom line, you weren't there, I wasn't there, so you don't know how the CAP entered the pattern anyway.
Click to expand...

The OP said he saw another plane on final during rotation -- while he was on the ground. Not another plane turning final or another plane about to turn final. Gotta let that anti-CAP bias go, or you look like you can't read. The right of way reg is quite unambiguous in this scenario. It makes no difference how the CAP plane entered the pattern, as long as it was while the other plane was still on the ground.

Wind favored 5 according to the OP. By your definition of a 91.13 violation, every OTHER aircraft would be careless.... or maybe it's just a nontowered airport and everyone has to take responsibility to look BEFORE leaping.

Steam gauge CAP panels have weird idiosyncracies, including a few poorly documented "split modes" used when the right and left seat need to talk to different people at the same time (very common during exercises, especially when the trainee observer doesn't know to tell Base to STFU at critical phases of flight). The G1000s are a whole lot more straightforward. They just have two audio panels that more or less behave and interact like you would expect. So, one thing that MIGHT have happened would be base called roll, observer set the panel to COM3 instead of COM1/COM3, and the pilot gave his traffic calls to Base. Or maybe COM1 just blew out. It happens.

It's a good bet that the later com test was because the CAP plane radioed a WTF to the opposing traffic, and figured out there was a problem because of that. Obviously, something went wrong. But the BIG one was the takeoff.
 
Yeah, you were there, planes had been using 23 according to the OP, so your CAP plane can just enter the pattern opposite direction, not announce their intentions, and probably straight in. Right. :rolleyes:

No anti-CAP bias here, I could care less whether it's CAP or AF1. You're the one who has the CAP bias buddy. And WTF does steam gauges vs G1000 have to do with anything. If you can't operate the radios be on the proper frequency and announce your position someone requires additional training, maybe both if 2 were aboard. You sure post on here as though you're an expert, and pretty much about everything. But I think you lack tact and common sense.
 
Last edited:
Wind didn't favor 5. Wind favored 23. OP favored 5 because it was closer to parking.

If I see a plane on final using a different, non-favored runway than everyone else is using and I'm at rotation speed, I'm rotating and getting the hell out of there. Why didn't NORDO plane fly over the field to see what was going on with winds and traffic? Or do a radio check? People at uncontrolled fields are usually pretty chatty. And clearly one radio was working that we know of.

Everyone screws up. OP, you handled this one perfectly.
 
mscard88 said:
Yeah, you were there, planes had been using 23 according to the OP, so your CAP plane can just enter the pattern opposite direction, not announce their intentions, and probably straight in. Right. :rolleyes:

No anti-CAP bias here, I could care less whether it's CAP or AF1. You're the one who has the CAP bias buddy. And WTF does steam gauges vs G1000 have to do with anything. If you can't operate the radios be on the proper frequency and announce your position someone requires additional training, maybe both if 2 were aboard. You sure post on here as thought you're an expert, and pretty much about everything. But I think you lack tact and common sense.
Click to expand...

Read 14 CFR 91.113.

It may not be the best idea, but it is perfectly legal to fly a straight in opposing traffic. Even NORDO.

It is also NOT legal to take off into opposing traffic. The OP didn't spot the traffic before taking the runway. That's a problem.

Most NORDO problems are accidents. So was not spotting the traffic, but that you're willing to give that a pass exposes your bias. It's an easy mistake to make, but it's the reason there is a post here in the first place. If the aircraft was close enough to be a factor at rotation, it was close enough to spot from the hold short line. VFR visibility requires three miles. That's at least two minutes from touchdown on a 6000 foot runway.
 
Radios aren't automatic anti-collision devices. It's the pilots that prevent the collisions. A mile away? Its a bit scary but manageable. Wait until you have one 100' away!
 
Ignore that 23 was being used according to the OP. But I reckon it's my anti-CAP biased. I'm done. Think what you want, as usual. :mad2:
 
Who knows, maybe if he can't get his radio working, he can't get his landing light on either.

Well, my lesson learned is always keep looking for some (legal) jackass on final to the opposing runway, even if I'm on it and on the roll. Because they may not abort, even though they should be looking at the runway and see me since it's VFR.
 
mscard88 said:
And WTF does steam gauges vs G1000 have to do with anything. If you can't operate the radios be on the proper frequency and announce your position someone requires additional training, maybe both if 2 were aboard.
Click to expand...

He was just describing the differences between older and newer CAP aircraft because it's a PITA figuring out what they've done to some of the older ones to accomodate multiple non-aviation radios on board -- through what are essentially audio panels never designed for such things.

Nearly none of those older aircraft are set up the same, even within the same Wing. It's a crap shoot to figure out what some "overly clever" avionics person did to make it all work.

It used to be really bad twenty years ago. Better today. Even better as the older aircraft are slowly auctioned off and retired.

In later model aircraft including the G1000 variety, there's an STCd standard change made to all of them right out of the factory that splits the audio panels on both sides into independently operating units, and adds two "lights out" style switches for additional routing (for the back seater and other optional gear) down on the lower kick panel near the trim wheel in the 182. (Never saw what they did to the 172s, but probably similar...)

So for the first time ever in the history of the fleet, there was a national standard. Hadn't been one before the first T182Ts and 172 brethren rolled off the Cessna line.

For that part of his comment he was just continuing my snarky thought that most NORDO events in any CAP aircraft are almost always a result of a totally jacked up audio panel design, especially in the older aircraft (all the "steam gauge" ones), set wrong.

On a real mission the buttonology for the radios can get a bit goofy if you're doing certain things that require both AM Aircraft Comm radios, the FM, the DF receiver audio, and monitoring or using various auxiliary stuff that can be carried aloft in the baggage area that also needs to be monitored.

The G1000 aircraft can handle splitting the various crew speaker and mic inputs up the best. The older aircraft are a dog's breakfast of possible configurations.
 
MetalCloud said:
Well, my lesson learned is always keep looking for some (legal) jackass on final to the opposing runway, even if I'm on it and on the roll. Because they may not abort, even though they should be looking at the runway and see me since it's VFR.
Click to expand...


Why should they abort? They have the right of way.
 
Palmpilot said:
Because yielding the right-of-way even though you have the right-of-way is better than a premature death.
Click to expand...

If you have the right of way you are expected to maintain your course until you are forced to take evasive action.
 
MetalCloud said:
Who knows, maybe if he can't get his radio working, he can't get his landing light on either.

Well, my lesson learned is always keep looking for some (legal) jackass on final to the opposing runway, even if I'm on it and on the roll.
Click to expand...

I would hope no one would need this thread to learn that lesson, since see and avoid should be lesson one, day one, but I am glad you know it now. But I'm not sure what you think makes the CAP pilot a jackass.

Because they may not abort, even though they should be looking at the runway and see me since it's VFR.
Click to expand...
In this scenario, if anyone was going to abort, it probably should have been the plane taking off. If he had gotten close enough that landing plane had to abort, it would have been him with the violation. But it sounds like everyone was far enough apart.
 
Palmpilot said:
Because yielding the right-of-way even though you have the right-of-way is better than a premature death.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. all they have to do is full throttle and go around.

weilke said:
If you have the right of way you are expected to maintain your course until you are forced to take evasive action.
Click to expand...

If I see another plane rolling towards me and rotating and I'm on final, better believe I'm aborting. I wouldn't want my fatal NTSB report reading "I was right! I'm dead, but I had right of way! Check the FARs!"
 
Lindberg said:
I would hope no one would need this thread to learn that lesson, since see and avoid should be lesson one, day one, but I am glad you know it now. But I'm not sure what you think makes the CAP pilot a jackass.

In this scenario, if anyone was going to abort, it probably should have been the plane taking off. If he had gotten close enough that landing plane had to abort, it would have been him with the violation. But it sounds like everyone was far enough apart.
Click to expand...

Oh I know. And maybe I'm the only pilot on this board that hasn't spotted every plane in the sky ever in VFR conditions.

I don't know the length of the runway. But in my plane, I'd be rotating and getting out of there. And what if I lock up or something and dude on final doesn't see me because he can't work a radio and possibly a landing light because he's distracted on the radio situation. Who knows.

I only know what I can control. And in that situation, I have more control finishing rotation and climbing out of the way. Being safe is better than being compliant here.
 
MetalCloud said:
Oh I know. And maybe I'm the only pilot on this board that hasn't spotted every plane in the sky ever in VFR conditions.

I don't know the length of the runway. But in my plane, I'd be rotating and getting out of there. And what if I lock up or something and dude on final doesn't see me because he can't work a radio and possibly a landing light because he's distracted on the radio situation. Who knows.

I only know what I can control. And in that situation, I have more control finishing rotation and climbing out of the way. Being safe is better than being compliant here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think one would have to be in the OP's situation to know what the fastest or safest way to resolve the conflict was. If he had aborted the takeoff, would he have been able to get slowed down and get to an exit in time? I don't think we can determine that from reading a description of the events.
 
weilke said:
If you have the right of way you are expected to maintain your course until you are forced to take evasive action.
Click to expand...
I don't see that in the regulations anywhere.

I'm also not convinced that waiting until you're forced to take evasive action is safe. How close is too close is a judgment call, and it's one that the PIC has to make.
 
weilke said:
If you have the right of way you are expected to maintain your course until you are forced to take evasive action.
Click to expand...

If you are following the nautical regs here, your statement is not true. You are not required to maintain course and speed until you are within four to six miles, distance determined by courts of law after the collision. Beyond that distance you are free to maneuver. "Forced to take evasive action" is when the two ships are "in extremis", another defined legal term in maritime law.

Of course what is legal is not always smart...

-Skip
 
MetalCloud said:
EXACTLY. all they have to do is full throttle and go around.



If I see another plane rolling towards me and rotating and I'm on final, better believe I'm aborting. I wouldn't want my fatal NTSB report reading "I was right! I'm dead, but I had right of way! Check the FARs!"
Click to expand...


That too.

And if you see a dangerous situation, no matter how right you were, once you see the danger and keep on going into it, you're just as guilty now, even more so as the other guy might have not seen you, but you seeing him and not acting, that's a whole nother ballgame.
 
I agree with the OP's actions and some of the above comments.
The fact that someone on short final techically has the right of way over aircraft "on the ground" does not mean that if I am right at take off speed and spot an aircraft landing in the opposite direction on the same runway I must abort. In fact, if I do abort, in many (maybe most) cases it could be less safe than rotating and executing an immediate turn (to the right if feasible). Of course if it's a very long runway and the traffic is on a long final when first spotted, and there is a convenient exit I can taxi into after the abort I might think differently, but in general I'd get the hell out of his way the quickest (and safest) way I can.
 
MetalCloud said:
EXACTLY. all they have to do is full throttle and go around.
Click to expand...

No, that's not all you have to do. You also have to avoid the other aircraft, and not deviate in the same direction. If you are both in the air, you are at a greatly increased risk of collision. And if it's really close enough to be a problem, you're flipping a coin.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, that's not all you have to do. You also have to avoid the other aircraft, and not deviate in the same direction. If you are both in the air, you are at a greatly increased risk of collision. And if it's really close enough to be a problem, you're flipping a coin.
Click to expand...

Ok so I didn't explain *everything* they have to do. They also have to apply right rudder if we're going to get pedantic about it.

And according to FARs they should both divert to the right. So that risk is more mitigated and yes they still have to look for traffic. But I still maintain that's the safer course of action. If it's really close enough to be a problem, I still think it's more dangerous for NORDO to land with an aborted (or aborting) plane on the runway.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, that's not all you have to do. You also have to avoid the other aircraft, and not deviate in the same direction. If you are both in the air, you are at a greatly increased risk of collision. And if it's really close enough to be a problem, you're flipping a coin.
Click to expand...

Not if they are trained pilots and possess and rightfully hold a pilots license, this is pre solo level knowledge.


§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(e) Approaching head-on.When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
 
MetalCloud said:
Ok so I didn't explain *everything* they have to do. They also have to apply right rudder if we're going to get pedantic about it.

And according to FARs they should both divert to the right. So that risk is more mitigated and yes they still have to look for traffic. But I still maintain that's the safer course of action. If it's really close enough to be a problem, I still think it's more dangerous for NORDO to land with an aborted (or aborting) plane on the runway.
Click to expand...

According to the FARs, they ALSO must make all turns to the left unless otherwise indicated.

AND they can deviate from any rule to deal with an emergency.

You don't know which way they will turn and it is far from obvious that having two airplanes in the air coming at each other is safer than having one on the runway. It is far easier to avoid a stopped aircraft.

It's not being pedantic. Avoiding the other airplane is the most important part of any of this, far more important than pushing the throttle in.
 
James331 said:
Not if they are trained pilots and possess and rightfully hold a pilots license, this is pre solo level knowledge.


§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(e) Approaching head-on.When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
Click to expand...

Only if you pick your FARs a certain way. That one is obviously about enroute flight....
 
Dude, if you deviate to the left in a head on scenario (regardless of how you ended up there) because you read "all turns should be to the left" regarding patterns you need serious remediation training....and i mean the proverbial "you".

I see the point you are tying to make...but please note the previous comment about common sense and get a flight suit that allows for better blood circulation to your head.
 
James331 said:
Not if they are trained pilots and possess and rightfully hold a pilots license, this is pre solo level knowledge.


§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(e) Approaching head-on.When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
Click to expand...

I think the question, is if the OP gave right away to the aircraft landing though. The landing aircraft shouldn't have to alter course to the right. From the OP's scenario, it doesn't sound like they did. If they didn't, then it's a matter of opinion of what is "well clear" of the landing aircraft.

Goes back to other threads when we talk about turning in front of an aircraft that reports final. Well clear, can have various definitions based on the individual pilot.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Dude, if you deviate to the left in a head on scenario (regardless of how you ended up there) because you read "all turns should be to the left" regarding patterns you need serious remediation training....and i mean the proverbial "you".

I see the point you are tying to make...but please note the previous comment about common sense and get a flight suit that allows for better blood circulation to your head.
Click to expand...

Common sense? How do you know there isn't a third airplane behind you and to the right, on downwind? This is actually very likely under the circumstances given -- busy airport, left traffic, tailwind runway "in use." Very few airplanes have acceptable visibility in that direction, and a Cessna has no chance if below pattern altitude at the time.

The point is that just automatically deviating to the right is not necessarily the correct response, and under some conditions outside either aircraft, it can cause an accident. What is needed is situational awareness, and the OP blew that. We don't know about the CAP aircraft. He probably screwed up his radio. And the flight suit (if any) had nothing to do with that.

Suppose the landing aircraft saw another on downwind for the same runway, close in, that the OP did not. Deviating to the right is then problematic for the landing aircraft.
 
Where are you guys getting anything about just departed or phase of flight???

If two aircraft are in the sky, where ever, for whatever reason, and they find themself head on with another aircraft --> break right <-- it's not complicated, it's written in very simple English and does not require any further reading into it.
 
MAKG1 said:
Common sense? How do you know there isn't a third airplane behind you and to the right, on downwind? This is actually very likely under the circumstances given -- busy airport, left traffic, tailwind runway "in use." Very few airplanes have acceptable visibility in that direction, and a Cessna has no chance if below pattern altitude at the time.

The point is that just automatically deviating to the right is not necessarily the correct response, and under some conditions outside the landing aircraft, it can cause an accident. What is needed is situational awareness, and the OP blew that. We don't know about the CAP aircraft. He probably screwed up his radio. And the flight suit (if any) had nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

Breaking right MIGHT cause a different issue, not breaking right for a head on WILL cause a crash.

Again, it's not written in a complicated manner for a reason
 
James331 said:
Breaking right MIGHT cause a different issue, not breaking right for a head on WILL cause a crash.

Again, it's not written in a complicated manner for a reason
Click to expand...

Well, we do fly in three dimensions. Not breaking right is sometimes the right solution.

Ever gone bike riding in a crowd? Notice what happens when someone tries to get out of your way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top