Redundant "traffic" and other annoyances . . .

Chip Sylverne said:
Which brings up another irritation, pilots who continue to use given runway after a change in wind direction, because " that's what everybody else is using". Listen to ATIS people. If the wind favors a different runway, say something!
Click to expand...
FYI, the ATIS will tell you which runway to expect and the tower will clear you for the runway they want you to use. Not your choice, but you can ask.

Maybe you mean listen to ASOS/AWOS, which may not exist at a particular field.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
... Listen to ATIS people. If the wind favors a different runway, say something!
Click to expand...
And if the AWOS/ASOS isn't there, fly overhead at least 500' above pattern altitude and use the Mark VII eyeball / wind sock(s) to assess wind direction & best runway.

Of course, 10 miles out you're already looking around the surface for wind direction and intensity clues: smoke, water, grass, etc.
 
Sinistar said:
The fun one is the teardrop entry call at a really busy pancake breakfast. I have no issue with that arrival. Just fun to hear that call when the "uhh" and "umm" start happening in the middle of the call.
Click to expand...
As long as we're ranting... I really dislike the use of the term "teardrop" for the midfield crossover to return on the 45. The FAA does not use that term for it. I understand the attraction of the term. It's short, but I cringe every time I hear it.

My problem is that it's not really a "teardrop entry," but it's often flown like one. The FAA talks about flying well clear (about 2 miles) from the pattern 500" above it, then descending to pattern altitude, then turning back for a 45. Flying It as described puts the airplane 3-5 miles (depending on speed) from the pattern before turning. Good.

But I've seen pilot after pilot treat it as a teardrop pattern maneuver. Maybe fly 2 miles from the airport (not from the pattern) and do a teardrop - a descending turn back toward the airport. Combine that with a busy pattern and Cessna 152s flying 737 patterns and it's too close and hazardous.

It seems calling it a teardrop entry leads to treating it as a teardrop entry.

1695632631392.png
 
The problem is the FAA diagram. While it says descend then turn, the diagram shows turning and descending because the arrows are not prominent in the diagram.
 
I still don't see the advantage of that descending pattern, heading directly into aircraft making a more standard midfield entry when simply joining the flow on the upwind side is easier and IMHO considerably safer. While I think it's best to go beyond the departure end for the crosswind, just flying the upwind to get a full view of the pattern can make it safe to cross over the runway to join the downwind.

I use this all the time returning to the airport after towing gliders, because other gliders are all over the place and all of them have the ROW. I want to see them first and have the option of continuing on the upwind indefinitely (or simply exit the pattern) if there's a potential conflict.

teardrop.jpg
 
Clip4 said:
The problem is the FAA diagram. While it says descend then turn, the diagram shows turning and descending because the arrows are not prominent in the diagram.
Click to expand...
The approach method was in existence long before the diagram. The problem is the way it's taught. I don't recall the use of the non-standard terminology "teardrop" until fairly recently.
 
Last edited:
dbahn said:
I still don't see the advantage of that descending pattern, heading directly into aircraft making a more standard midfield entry when simply joining the flow on the upwind side is easier and IMHO considerably safer. While I think it's best to go beyond the departure end for the crosswind, just flying the upwind to get a full view of the pattern can make it safe to cross over the runway to join the downwind.
Click to expand...
Just like your upwind to crosswind (and for that matter any other entry you might choose), you need to be doing it properly which includes watching for other traffic. Doing the FAA's preferred method properly, you are above aircraft approaching on the 45 (discounting the ignored issue of jets using a 1500 AGL pattern), not descending until it's clear, and making a level (not descending) turn to join the 45.

But I've personally always preferred the direct crosswind to downwind unless the pattern was too busy to accommodate.
 
dbahn said:
I still don't see the advantage of that descending pattern, heading directly into aircraft making a more standard midfield entry when simply joining the flow on the upwind side is easier and IMHO considerably safer. While I think it's best to go beyond the departure end for the crosswind, just flying the upwind to get a full view of the pattern can make it safe to cross over the runway to join the downwind.

I use this all the time returning to the airport after towing gliders, because other gliders are all over the place and all of them have the ROW. I want to see them first and have the option of continuing on the upwind indefinitely (or simply exit the pattern) if there's a potential conflict.

View attachment 120858
Click to expand...


:yeahthat: Preach it, brother!
 
midlifeflyer said:
As long as we're ranting... I really dislike the use of the term "teardrop" for the midfield crossover to return on the 45. The FAA does not use that term for it. I understand the attraction of the term. It's short, but I cringe every time I hear it.

My problem is that it's not really a "teardrop entry," but it's often flown like one. The FAA talks about flying well clear (about 2 miles) from the pattern 500" above it, then descending to pattern altitude, then turning back for a 45. Flying It as described puts the airplane 3-5 miles (depending on speed) from the pattern before turning. Good.

But I've seen pilot after pilot treat it as a teardrop pattern maneuver. Maybe fly 2 miles from the airport (not from the pattern) and do a teardrop - a descending turn back toward the airport. Combine that with a busy pattern and Cessna 152s flying 737 patterns and it's too close and hazardous.

It seems calling it a teardrop entry leads to treating it as a teardrop entry.

View attachment 120857
Click to expand...

I have no recollection of "teardrop" used regarding VFR patterns back when I was actively flying. I've heard it a lot on youtube lately though, and I find it weird. Still, I suppose it better than the very long winded "2 miles to the south, crossing midfield at ahhh 1,500 to ummmm enter the ahhh at 45 to enter the downwind ...." or some other similar variation that all of us have no doubt uttered on the radio at some point

dbahn said:
I still don't see the advantage of that descending pattern, heading directly into aircraft making a more standard midfield entry when simply joining the flow on the upwind side is easier and IMHO considerably safer. While I think it's best to go beyond the departure end for the crosswind, just flying the upwind to get a full view of the pattern can make it safe to cross over the runway to join the downwind.

I use this all the time returning to the airport after towing gliders, because other gliders are all over the place and all of them have the ROW. I want to see them first and have the option of continuing on the upwind indefinitely (or simply exit the pattern) if there's a potential conflict.

View attachment 120858
Click to expand...
yeah, this
midlifeflyer said:
Just like your upwind to crosswind (and for that matter any other entry you might choose), you need to be doing it properly which includes watching for other traffic. Doing the FAA's preferred method properly, you are above aircraft approaching on the 45 (discounting the ignored issue of jets using a 1500 AGL pattern), not descending until it's clear, and making a level (not descending) turn to join the 45.

But I've personally always preferred the direct crosswind to downwind unless the pattern was too busy to accommodate.
Click to expand...
or maybe even better..... (or direct downwind entry if approaching from that side.....)

all assuming the pattern isn't too full.
If the pattern is packed, I kind of feel like the 45° to midfield downwind is better because you're mostly at least fitting into the other traffic that is is at least established on a straight path even if they might still be climbing, so they can be more likely to see you and you have arguably an easier time to adjust to fit in....
 
I mean…. Could be worse. An extra word is better than too few. And I think the “traffic” thing has evolved as part of making students aware. Who are you talking to? Why?
 
John Spartan said:
And I think the “traffic” thing has evolved as part of making students aware. Who are you talking to? Why?
Click to expand...
You really think student pilots would wonder who the pilot who ended a call with "left downwind Runway 32. Podunk" were talking to and why unless they added "traffic" at the very end?
 
midlifeflyer said:
You really think student pilots would wonder who the pilot who ended a call with "left downwind Runway 32. Podunk" were talking to and why unless they added "traffic" at the very end?
Click to expand...
No. I think it helps a new Flyer visualize that they are talking to other people in the pattern. I realize there can be too much specificity like every detail (guy in blue shirt, 87 Skylane has wobbly nose wheel 8 miles final) or whatever… but saying “traffic” just isn’t an issue. It is a targeting word. Are you this airports traffic? That means you! Student pilots will benefit from that one word more than any leather helmeted codger suffers.
 
John Spartan said:
No. I think it helps a new Flyer visualize that they are talking to other people in the pattern. I realize there can be too much specificity like every detail (guy in blue shirt, 87 Skylane has wobbly nose wheel 8 miles final) or whatever… but saying “traffic” just isn’t an issue. It is a targeting word. Are you this airports traffic? That means you! Student pilots will benefit from that one word more than any leather helmeted codger suffers.
Click to expand...
Either that, or it makes radio communication more foreign to a student pilot, because you “are supposed to” structure Sentences in a way that you wouldn’t outside of an airplane. “Bob, I’m going to land, Bob.”

and nowhere identifying the actual airport that you’re using.
 
Last edited:
John Spartan said:
No. I think it helps a new Flyer visualize that they are talking to other people in the pattern. I realize there can be too much specificity like every detail (guy in blue shirt, 87 Skylane has wobbly nose wheel 8 miles final) or whatever… but saying “traffic” just isn’t an issue. It is a targeting word. Are you this airports traffic? That means you! Student pilots will benefit from that one word more than any leather helmeted codger suffers.
Click to expand...

Mayte they think you are ordering soup from the "Left Downwind" restaurant instead of making a traffic call?

Sorry, but I can't see how adding the verbiage in red to the end of these AIM examples benefits anyone.

==============================
6. Recommended self-announce phraseologies: It should be noted that aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be making self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM frequency. To help identify one airport from another, the airport name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each self-announce transmission.

(a) Inbound
EXAMPLE-
Strawn traffic, Apache Two Two Five Zulu, (position), (altitude), (descending) or entering downwind/base/final (as appropriate) runway one seven full stop, touch-and-go, Strawn.
Strawn traffic Apache Two Two Five Zulu clear of runway one seven Strawn. Traffic

(b) Outbound
EXAMPLE-
Strawn traffic, Queen Air Seven One Five Five Bravo (location on airport) taxiing to runway two six Strawn. Strawn traffic, Queen Air Seven One Five Five Bravo departing runway two six. Departing the pattern to the (direction), climbing to (altitude) Strawn. Traffic

(c) Practice Instrument Approach
EXAMPLE-
Strawn traffic, Cessna Two One Four Three Quebec (position from airport) inbound descending through (altitude) practice (name of approach) approach runway three five Strawn. Strawn traffic, Cessna Two One Four Three Quebec practice (type) approach completed or terminated runway three five Strawn. Traffic
==============================

Frankly, I think it's on about the same level as "'with you' helps controllers know you are talking to them."
 
MauleSkinner said:
Either that, or it makes radio communication more foreign to a student pilot, because you “are supposed to” structure Sentences in a way that you wouldn’t outside of an airplane. “Bob, I’m going to land, Bob.”

and nowhere identifying the actual airport that you’re using.
Click to expand...
If you say so. It’s already foreign by nature. Blasting around the skies isn’t normal albeit amazing. And I was taught “Airport name traffic, Cessna 123A turning left downwind, runway 22, full stop, airport name traffic”. I’ve heard plenty of variation on which turn to include landing intentions, all, final, etc. Regardless, the added “traffic” is not an issue in any way. Now telling a life story like the prior examples is different. No one needs to know what you had for breakfast and the color of your underpants.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So that's the reason. Just another CFI who teaches nonstandard communication as though it's important.
Click to expand...
Just one more example of someone being taught wrong then passing it on to others. I love it when students learn to challenge their CFIs for reasoning instead of dogma.
 
A pet peeve is people announcing positions using IFR fixes at uncontrolled fields. Sorry, but announcing you're over UCETI inbound for 14 doesn't help a VFR pilot much. Even with an instrument rating, I don't always have approaches memorized.
 
It’s essentially verbal “book ending”. Start words equal end words. X Traffic - info - X Traffic. Humans do this kind of thing when following patterns. Are you technically correct? Yes the final traffic isn’t needed or correct. But if that extra “traffic” at the end really bothers you that much, you probably have bigger problems. Considering all the other offenses out there for bad airborne communication, a superfluous “traffic” at the end really doesn’t rate for me.
 
John Spartan said:
It’s essentially verbal “book ending”. Start words equal end words. X Traffic - info - X Traffic. Humans do this kind of thing when following patterns. Are you technically correct? Yes the final traffic isn’t needed or correct. But if that extra “traffic” at the end really bothers you that much, you probably have bigger problems. Considering all the other offenses out there for bad airborne communication, a superfluous “traffic” at the end really doesn’t rate for me.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the verbal book ending is intended to be X.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Yes, but the verbal book ending is intended to be X.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you are technically right... But the start of the bookend on paper looks like “X Traffic” to a novice. And it’s a small thing compared to other possible grievances. Anyone who only has “he said traffic at the end. TRAFFIC!!! <gasp>” is flying in some accommodating airspace. But to each their own I guess. Lord knows there could be worse problems than the gift of flying with a chap on the radio who uses one word too many.
 
I learned, "Podunk Traffic, November XXXXX, turning final for runway 34, Podunk" but about half the time, my mouth adds the second traffic on the end without any forethought about doing so. I never realized that slip of the tongue was so offensive, though. :crazy:
 
John Spartan said:
Like I said, you are technically right... But the start of the bookend on paper looks like “X Traffic” to a novice. And it’s a small thing compared to other possible grievances. Anyone who only has “he said traffic at the end. TRAFFIC!!! <gasp>” is flying in some accommodating airspace. But to each their own I guess. Lord knows there could be worse problems than the gift of flying with a chap on the radio who uses one word too many.
Click to expand...
It’s a slippery slope.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You really think student pilots would wonder who the pilot who ended a call with "left downwind Runway 32. Podunk" were talking to and why unless they added "traffic" at the very end?
Click to expand...
The point the OP made was that the ending "traffic" is redundant.

As I stated, we are using some short hand. Podunk Traffic (who we are talking to), (this is IMPLIED) Cessna 123 (who we are), left downwind (where we are) for runway 01 (what we are going to do), (at) Podunk.

Adding the word traffic at the end is redundant and sounds strange to me.
 
Pinecone said:
The point the OP made was that the ending "traffic" is redundant.

As I stated, we are using some short hand. Podunk Traffic (who we are talking to), (this is IMPLIED) Cessna 123 (who we are), left downwind (where we are) for runway 01 (what we are going to do), (at) Podunk.

Adding the word traffic at the end is redundant and sounds strange to me.
Click to expand...
Well you ain’t wrong. But it’s understandable to me why it happens. “Podunk” + “Traffic” may be two things but it sounds and feels like one…. “Podunk Traffic”. It’s just going to happen. I heard someone tying up the channel intentionally doing some weird Slingblade grunts over the radio a once. Eventually someone told them to stop. Five minutes of that was much worse than a bonus “traffic” now and again. :)
 
Pinecone said:
Adding the word traffic at the end is redundant and sounds strange to me.
Click to expand...
Me too, but that may be because it only started fairly recently. Or maybe it really IS strange, which I agree it is.

But there is a functionality to the difference. "XYZ traffic" is "checking in" and there's more info to follow and, "XYZ" is "I'm done transmitting" for now. I just don't think they have exactly the same meaning.
 
I’m more concerned with society’s failure to understand the difference between THEN and THAN. Pretty sure it indicates that the global IQ is in an uncontrolled descent.
 
John Spartan said:
I’m more concerned with society’s failure to understand the difference between THEN and THAN. Pretty sure it indicates that the global IQ is in an uncontrolled descent.
Click to expand...

Or LOOSE and LOSE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top