Questions about safety meeting stuff

[Richard]

In response to Ben's post let me clarify my avoidance of straight-in app to non-towered fields: when IFR, continue the app--if that means a straight-in, so be it. VFR, no way, no how.


I actually got into several heated arguements with my CFI for the IR about what my calls should contain while making practice app in VMC. His position was I was saying too much; my position was I need to be relatable to the VFR guys too. "Piper1233D, 2,000, inbound at TWANG" left the VFR guys clueless, I may as well say nothing if it's not relatable and meaningful.

 

[Carol]

..... "Piper1233D, 2,000, inbound at TWANG" left the VFR guys clueless, I may as well say nothing if it's not relatable and meaningful.

No doubt.

I always call position so that any beginning student would know where I am because we do have beginning students at our field. No straight ins in VMC. Only the corp jet folks do that.

With regards to landing right and left-hand patterns simultaneously, we discussed that at our airport among the power and glider pilots. We decided we'd all land in the same manner and use radios. Heads on swivels.

 

[mmthomas]

As for cross-field pattern entries, you won't catch me doing midfield crosswinds. You will find me flying a crosswind past the departure end at roughly the point where an airplane in the pattern would turn crosswind, but at pattern altitude.

Another example of the absence of any real standardization. I agree there are reasons to prefer this entry to a mid-field (and, as I suggested earlier) to maneuvering to execute a 45 degree downwind entry.

 

[MSmith]

I suspect that you can also identify the visitors as the ones completely in the dark about who's who in the pattern. Your voice recognition method may work well for you, but it stinks for anyone not all that familiar with the resident voices.

We're not recognizing the residents by voice, we're distinguishing pilots by voice.

While I do recognize a few folks by voice (and I will often use their name on the air to be VERY clear), it's more a case of knowing that the guy with the deep voice called base while the woman with the higher pitched voice just called turning downwind. When she calls base, I know it's the same aircraft.

 

[spiderweb]

In response to Ben's post let me clarify my avoidance of straight-in app to non-towered fields: when IFR, continue the app--if that means a straight-in, so be it. VFR, no way, no how.

That's about how I feel.

I actually got into several heated arguements with my CFI for the IR about what my calls should contain while making practice app in VMC. His position was I was saying too much; my position was I need to be relatable to the VFR guys too. "Piper1233D, 2,000, inbound at TWANG" left the VFR guys clueless, I may as well say nothing if it's not relatable and meaningful.

I agree.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

In response to Ben's post let me clarify my avoidance of straight-in app to non-towered fields: when IFR, continue the app--if that means a straight-in, so be it. VFR, no way, no how.


I actually got into several heated arguements with my CFI for the IR about what my calls should contain while making practice app in VMC. His position was I was saying too much; my position was I need to be relatable to the VFR guys too. "Piper1233D, 2,000, inbound at TWANG" left the VFR guys clueless, I may as well say nothing if it's not relatable and meaningful.

BDA:
Bearing Distance and Altitude reports let the VFR pilots that are paying attention know where you are, no matter what the pattern is doing. We'll tell 'em "Stationair 78 Xray, (BDA) plus; coming in for a practice instrument (low) approach under the hood for runway 01, you are no (conflicting) factor, we see you, we'll be breaking off in time." It takes 5 to 7 seconds to annunciate it clearly

If there's no other apparent traffic and we want to practice a tailwind landing after the approach, I'll announce that too, just in case somebody's out there somewhere and so we don't have to listen to a CTAF lurker tell us which way the wind is blowing.

 

[gismo]

We're not recognizing the residents by voice, we're distinguishing pilots by voice.

While I do recognize a few folks by voice (and I will often use their name on the air to be VERY clear), it's more a case of knowing that the guy with the deep voice called base while the woman with the higher pitched voice just called turning downwind. When she calls base, I know it's the same aircraft.

Hmmm, that might actually work. Then again what do you say on the air, just "turning left base"?

 

[acrodisiac]

OK guys and girls time for a Canuck to put in his (nearly at par) 2cents worth.

Yes we have a "no 45 deg " pattern entry rule here (called a ciruit here by the way in case you come to visit) . More accuratley as the dude from MA. stated a mid field entry is the law when approaching from the upwind side. This does make a lot of sense as already mentioned in a previous post reply (can see l-r and ahead). What doesn't make sense here is that we cannont legally do a 45 deg entry into the downwind side.

From downwind there are two choices.
1/direct entry into the downwind or
2/ cross overheaad (circuit/TPA + 500 ft) then turnaround on the upwind side to make the midfield downwind entry.
Now #2 that is stupid in my opinion. (makes sense only when approaching the departure end of the rnwy at an acute angle). By the way what is wrong with a 90 deg entry into the downwind? It makes as much sense for the same reasons as the upwind approach rule, but it's not legal here?

I do like the idea of having some sort of standardized circuit/TP rules but it seems that the Cdn regs together with the US 45 deg idea is the best solution. It was best said earlier also that whatever entry requires the minimum manouvering is best but that is just too much common sense isn't it? Can't make rules out of common sense in this country; doubt that you can in yours - lawmakers are the same everywhere!)

Call signs in the circuit/TP

I like (and use) this format:

Type ( simplified and only when at u/c airports i.e Cessna, twin commanche etc)
Position in circuiit/TP ( ALL legs including the entry) and # sequence if possible to determine
Intentions ( landing , T & G , forced landing etc.)
Airport confirmation - Uncontrolled airports using unicom ( lots using the same freq!)

example:
JOINING the circuit/TP

twin commanche NXXX / overhead Airport name / for the turnaround to join downwind rnwy 33 / # 3 for landing / Airport NAME

Entering the first circuit/TP segment

twin commanche NXXX / entering left down wind rnwy 33 / # 2 for landing / Airport NAME

etc base , etc final

( I'll drop the type name when I'm pretty sure the traffic is sorted out) .
The idea of confiming the airport name really helps. When some calls turning final rnwy 33 on the unicom I want to know for sure what airport he/she is at! There are a lot of rnwy 33's on the same unicom some days! )

By the way , I do lots of flying in both countries. I see the same problems in both always.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If I hear 421, I know I am looking for 2 engines and a heck of a lot more speed. Probably a bigger pattern as well. Big difference.

Which is why the 310/414/421/etc. drivers call ATC using "Twin Cessna N123X" rather than just Cessna.

IMHO, "Cessna" = 152/172/182/etc. What you think of when you hear the word Cessna. I do sometimes use "Skylane" when I'm in one, but usually "Cessna" in a 172. How many of you know what a Cutlass is? Skywagon? Would you be able to tell the difference between them at the distances you hopefully are away from them in the air?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Which is why the 310/414/421/etc. drivers call ATC using "Twin Cessna N123X" rather than just Cessna.

IMHO, "Cessna" = 152/172/182/etc. What you think of when you hear the word Cessna. I do sometimes use "Skylane" when I'm in one, but usually "Cessna" in a 172. How many of you know what a Cutlass is? Skywagon? Would you be able to tell the difference between them at the distances you hopefully are away from them in the air?

The higher the potential speed, complexity or rarity of the aircraft, the more important it is to mention the actual model name to the world in general... it's just way cooler, as if flying isn't cool enough by itself, and without it nobody really can hear how far one has advanced in the pastime of aviation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The one time I went to one of these they presenter gave the standing-room-only crowd some very suspicious advice about navigating near thunderstorms. I debated him briefly using statistical evidence from the accident record to back up my position, but all he fell back on is "you should believe me because I have the microphone." He basically shouted me down. I have not gone back to one.

Heh... Last time I went to one there was a guy from a tech college telling us that you had to have the proper endorsements (hi-perf/complex/etc) to *log* PIC. I was among a chorus of people correcting him. Where do they get these guys?

As for cross-field pattern entries, you won't catch me doing midfield crosswinds. You will find me flying a crosswind past the departure end at roughly the point where an airplane in the pattern would turn crosswind, but at pattern altitude.

Same here. What's better about mid-field crosswind? It seems that if you make the turn mid-field you'd still be unable to see traffic that's on downwind once you start the turn. Both this method and the 45-degree entry share one thing: It will be much easier for traffic already on downwind to see the entering aircraft than it will be for the entering aircraft to see traffic already in the pattern. Maybe that's why they came about.

 

[gkainz]

The higher the potential speed of the aircraft, the more important it is to mention the actual model name to the world in general... it's just way cooler, as if flying isn't cool enough by itself, and without it nobody really can hear how far one has advanced in the pastime of aviation.

Especially cool when in the pattern at Kremmling, CO with a Cardinal...with apologies to Tom Clancy for the bad pun...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Now I question some of the other tips he gave.

Nick,

Why don't you share them with us, so we can iron out all the right answers? I'm sure we can all learn something.

Maybe start a new thread though... Or better yet, a thread for each tip. Then we can pile on all of the good/bad things about each and learn a ton!

 

[poadeleted20]

When the Navy was here at LRU last spring they did exactly that, flew right traffic while civilians flew left. It actually worked out pretty well. If there was a conflict the RDO would send the Bearcat around and let the civilian land. It made it a little easier to blend in with the much faster Bearcats as well.

The Navy is not entirely bound to follow Part 91 (just their own flight rules - OPNAVINST 3710.7), but even if they weren't, the Navy hasn't flown a Bearcat in about 50 years.

 

[poadeleted20]

In response to Ben's post let me clarify my avoidance of straight-in app to non-towered fields: when IFR, continue the app--if that means a straight-in, so be it. VFR, no way, no how.

The VFR straight-in is not only legal at nontowered airports, it is often the safest way to get to the runway if you're coming from that direction, provided everyone's paying attention. Where it has problems is when the straight-in traffic doesn't announce or has no radio, and the traffic in the pattern isn't looking as they should before turning base.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

When the Navy was here at LRU last spring they did exactly that, flew right traffic while civilians flew left. It actually worked out pretty well. If there was a conflict the RDO would send the Bearcat around and let the civilian land. It made it a little easier to blend in with the much faster Bearcats as well.
Don

Sure, having a controller is a whole different scenario than in untowered air.
We fly in double patterns all the time at BFI for RWYs 13 L&R and 31 R&L with only minimal problems.