Runway 35 or 17?

AuntPeggy

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,484
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Namaste
Home Airfield
OK93 (Airman Acres)
We went flying yesterday to shake some of the rust off the plane and our piloting skills because it has finally gotten calm enough and warm enough.

Did some maneuvers, then went to an untowered field with a paved runway to do some landing practice. Listened to AWOS, wind 070 @ 05. Chose Runway 35, left pattern. Shortly after we got there, we were joined by another aircraft doing the same thing. A little later, another aircraft announced he was 10 out and preparing for right traffic 17. Both of us in the pattern repeated left pattern for 35. We took off 35 following a touch & go with the other aircraft on final 35. We turned left onto the crosswind and saw a Bonanza on his right base for 17. We passed one another and then I guess he saw the Piper. He gets on the radio and berates us, saying that the traffic pattern for this airport is right traffic. Which it is for Runway 17, but not for 35. He harangued the other pilot as well. Turns out that while we were doing our thing, the wind had shifted to 120 @ 05, so he figured that we should have all shifted to Runway 17. We just left for another airport.

I think he should have been listening to what the traffic was doing and if he had a problem with that he should have said so before he tried to land head-on to someone else. What do you think?
 
What a TOOL!! Some people are just waaaaay to important to be civilized.
 
who cares - you can land on any darn runway you want at a non-towered field if a runway is not notamed closed - we all suffer Bonanza / Cirrus pilots from time to time
 
Hey - sorry about that, but you brand C and P cans were in my way. :wink2:
 
If I were approaching an airport (non towered) with the wind around 5 kt and shifting I would follow traffic already in the pattern. It sounds like there must be a town to the east if its RH Pattern on 17 and LH on 35 and for the guy landing not to know his local pattern AND berate two planes already in the pattern means he must have issues that go well beyond what you heard on the radio.

He should have asked you guys what the wind sock looked like, maybe it didn't match the ATIS, maybe you guys knew of different conditions?

Reminds me of when I got chewed out by some megalomaniac at a non towered airport (with instrument approaches) for landing straight in. His argument was there are planes that fly here without radios and you should never ever fly straight in.
Man I hope that cowboy who is too cheap to purchase a radio looks down final when on base for that Jet straight in on the RNAV approach.
 
DaleB said:
And that sometimes applies to other pilots, too -- not just other planes.
Click to expand...

I can hardly wait for the first couple of really nice spring weekends around here. It's been a really bad winter for flying and once everyone comes out of hibernation it's going to be crazy. With all the NORDO planes and multiple rwys we have, I think I'll sit it out for a little while during peak times.
 
A BO pilot,what a shock. Not only does he expect his own way,he doesn't listen either.
 
I still don't understand why the OP thinks the Bo driver should give up more than 6Kts of landing speed cause they are using the wrong runway.

I sure wouldn't unless there were other unforeseen reasons like power lines, trees, houses, etc.

<edit; and stop PMing me. I don't read them.>
 
docmirror said:
I still don't understand why the OP thinks the Bo driver should give up more than 6Kts of landing speed cause they are using the wrong runway.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting it either. Sounds like the wind shifted and the OP didn't bother to notice. Bo driver did what the Bo driver should have done.
 
Legally, the Bo pilot must yield right of way IAW 91.113(g) until the plane ahead is out of the way, and then the next pilot must give the same deference to the Bo pilot. However, "haranguing" on CTAF is inappropriate behavior, and probably a violation of FCC rules, even if the prior pilot was still using 35 after the winds shifted.
 
Yes, I find that sometimes following the regs requires me to make allowances for bad pilots. In some cases being 'in the right' isn't enough, one needs also to fly defensively.
 
No problem with the Bonanza opting for the other runway, but no reason to be an jerk about it. Announce your intentions and work it out with the traffic already established in the pattern. With just a 3 knot head/tailwind component, there could be many reasons why you would opt for one runway over the other.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
A ~12% increase in landing speed isn't something I'm going to ignore. We have the OPs word that he was a jerk about it. Frankly, I find people taking off and landing downwind when the AWOS advises otherwise to be a rather jerky thing to do. But -- that's just me, Bo driver, reg follower, whipping boy.
 
Ron Levy said:
Legally, the Bo pilot must yield right of way IAW 91.113(g) until the plane ahead is out of the way, and then the next pilot must give the same deference to the Bo pilot. However, "haranguing" on CTAF is inappropriate behavior, and probably a violation of FCC rules, even if the prior pilot was still using 35 after the winds shifted.
Click to expand...


Remember........

This is AP's side of the story...:idea::rolleyes:
 
docmirror said:
I still don't understand why the OP thinks the Bo driver should give up more than 6Kts of landing speed cause they are using the wrong runway.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point. I am sure if they would have noticed they were landing with a slight tailwind they would have gladly changed what runway they were using.

The issue was the ATTITUDE displayed by the pilot "in the right".
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That wasn't the point. I am sure if they would have noticed they were landing with a slight tailwind they would have gladly changed what runway they were using.

The issue was the ATTITUDE displayed by the pilot "in the right".
Click to expand...

An attitude we cannot evaluate.

What we can evaluate is the OP not following safe landing procedures, and blaming someone else for their mistake.
 
The BO pilot knew 10 miles out that other planes were on left pattern for 17.
He could have ask the other pilots the reason for using 35 , surely he couldn't have seen the flag 10 miles out .
He just wanted to be a jerk !
 
That's why there's AWOS which is audible for more than 10 miles.
 
docmirror said:
A ~12% increase in landing speed isn't something I'm going to ignore. We have the OPs word that he was a jerk about it. Frankly, I find people taking off and landing downwind when the AWOS advises otherwise to be a rather jerky thing to do. But -- that's just me, Bo driver, reg follower, whipping boy.
Click to expand...


But without knowing the airport you can't just say that your fellow Bo pilot was right. Maybe 35 is the preferred calm wind runway. (I know, that's for less than 5 knots). But it could have other noise abatement considerations. Maybe 17 has a displaced threshold and 35 doesn't. What if it's a 6000' runway, would the 12 percent difference still require you not to follow the flow of traffic already in the pattern?
 
docmirror said:
That's why there's AWOS which is audible for more than 10 miles.
Click to expand...


The OP listened to the AWOS before starting touch and goes and used the favored runway a the time. Do you listen to the AWOS every time around the pattern? Depending on how ratty the windsock is, that slight change in might not even been noticeable.

Where is the location of the wind sock compared to the AWOS. I don't know how many times I've listened to the winds being broadcast and then experienced something completely different.

Point is, without being there, it's tough to say which runway was preferable, but certainly no reason to be an azz about it.
 
Dave Theisen said:
The OP listened to the AWOS before starting touch and goes and used the favored runway a the time. Do you listen to the AWOS every time around the pattern? Depending on how ratty the windsock is, that slight change in might not even been noticeable.

Where is the location of the wind sock compared to the AWOS. I don't know how many times I've listened to the winds being broadcast and then experienced something completely different.

Point is, without being there, it's tough to say which runway was preferable, but certainly no reason to be an azz about it.
Click to expand...

Hence the Bo pilot should have at least asked the two other planes in the pattern why their choices were not preferred based on his current ATIS. He blindly accepted the automated wind report over two planes taking off and landing....

I am probably a bad pilot but I would have had some dialog with the pilots at the airport about the wind to confirm the ATIS.

Then get it straightened out before getting belligerent...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
MyassisDragon said:
]Reminds me of when I got chewed out by some megalomaniac at a non towered airport (with instrument approaches) for landing straight in. His argument was there are planes that fly here without radios and you should never ever fly straight in.
Man I hope that cowboy who is too cheap to purchase a radio looks down final when on base for that Jet straight in on the RNAV approach.
Click to expand...

I had a radio Nazi jump all over me for a straight in approach to a non-towered field one day. Claimed they weren't allowed at that field. I asked him where that was stated in the A/FD. Didn't hear another word. And, like you noted, there are instrument approaches to that runway. Phooey with those blowhards.
 
I've always believed an untowered airport to be dealer's choice however, FAR also says that arriving traffic must conform to traffic in the pattern. In this case, if the Bo thought 17 was a better choice, he should have suggested that. Picking a fight does not win friends or arguments. Since he was number two in the pattern, he should have waited for Peg regardless of which runway HE used.
 
After thoroughly re-reading the AIM and the FARs, and carefully assessing the situation described herein, I'd offer to you that the Bo pilot can go suck it.

AuntPeggy said:
We went flying yesterday to shake some of the rust off the plane and our piloting skills because it has finally gotten calm enough and warm enough.

Did some maneuvers, then went to an untowered field with a paved runway to do some landing practice. Listened to AWOS, wind 070 @ 05. Chose Runway 35, left pattern. Shortly after we got there, we were joined by another aircraft doing the same thing. A little later, another aircraft announced he was 10 out and preparing for right traffic 17. Both of us in the pattern repeated left pattern for 35. We took off 35 following a touch & go with the other aircraft on final 35. We turned left onto the crosswind and saw a Bonanza on his right base for 17. We passed one another and then I guess he saw the Piper. He gets on the radio and berates us, saying that the traffic pattern for this airport is right traffic. Which it is for Runway 17, but not for 35. He harangued the other pilot as well. Turns out that while we were doing our thing, the wind had shifted to 120 @ 05, so he figured that we should have all shifted to Runway 17. We just left for another airport.

I think he should have been listening to what the traffic was doing and if he had a problem with that he should have said so before he tried to land head-on to someone else. What do you think?
Click to expand...
 
Dave Theisen said:
But without knowing the airport you can't just say that your fellow Bo pilot was right. Maybe 35 is the preferred calm wind runway. (I know, that's for less than 5 knots). But it could have other noise abatement considerations. Maybe 17 has a displaced threshold and 35 doesn't. What if it's a 6000' runway, would the 12 percent difference still require you not to follow the flow of traffic already in the pattern?
Click to expand...

Ref post #13.
 
However, "haranguing" on CTAF is inappropriate behavior,
Click to expand...

I'm with Cap'n Ron. Arguing and fussing on CTAF is never the right thing to do. If I were 10 miles out and aircraft in the pattern were landing downwind (with no more tailwind than Peg had), I would just follow them in and go on about my business. Around here, we have aircraft taking off upwind and landing downwind all the time during spraying season. I cannot understand someone always wanting to pick a fight about things that really are non-events.
 
silver-eagle said:
I've always believed an untowered airport to be dealer's choice however, FAR also says that arriving traffic must conform to traffic in the pattern.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any FAA regulation requiring that. Here is the regulation on right-of-way when landing in its entirety:
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Click to expand...
Nothing in here about "conform[ing] to traffic in the pattern". If there's another regulation you know which requires that, I'd would very much appreciate it if you would post a reference.

In this case, if the Bo thought 17 was a better choice, he should have suggested that. Picking a fight does not win friends or arguments. Since he was number two in the pattern, he should have waited for Peg regardless of which runway HE used.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points.
 
somorris said:
I'm with Cap'n Ron. Arguing and fussing on CTAF is never the right thing to do. If I were 10 miles out and aircraft in the pattern were landing downwind (with no more tailwind than Peg had), I would just follow them in and go on about my business.
Click to expand...
And if I didn't want to land with that tailwind, I'd either politely work it out on CTAF to make a hole for me to land the other way, or wait until everyone else was done and then enter the pattern for the other direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top