Touch and Go Safety

Ryanb said:
That's the whole point, you've said it's not the pilots' job to declare a runway the active, but now you say we as pilots "get to pick YOUR active." :dunno: Sounds like you contradicted yourself.

So that's the whole argument I'm implying. There is no ATC declared active runway, but it's our job as pilots to declare it the active, whether others' agree with my active runway or not, that's the RWY I've chosen to use.
Click to expand...
Maybe I was wrong in my last post. You mean you actually say "left downwind the active" instead of "left downwind runway 32" and "taking off on the active"?
 
This is Whisky Tango Foxtrot- any traffic in the area, please advise. I'm rollin' a deadbolt for the active, maybe 5 miles, maybe 4 minutes... plan on runnin' a couple buttonhooks and a dogleg to back off that slow little Taylorcraft's rudder a bit before I grease it onto the active. I'm clear to land. See you keyholes at the bar!
 
Mark, when I hear "clear of the active," I try to spot the airplane on the ground so I don't try to use the same exit and get stuck on the runway. It's nice to know if he's actually clear of a different runway and not a factor. Hearing a "crossing the active" taxi call is not pleasant if you're on short final, and it's even more irritating if it's a different active from yours.

Nontowered fields are rare here, and they tend to swarm with student pilots on nice weekend days. Especially the coastal ones, as they are quite scenic.

And while I've never heard pattern calls using "the active," I've certainly heard them with no runway, which really is the same thing.
 
The best Unicom call I have heard from the kid at the FBO, in response to a request to "say active," was "recent arrivals have been using runway 12". This gets the message across and prevents the now 121 page thread (and counting) thread about the active...
 
midlifeflyer said:
Maybe I was wrong in my last post. You mean you actually say "left downwind the active" instead of "left downwind runway 32" and "taking off on the active"?
Click to expand...
No, I never say "left downwind for the active" I always say the runway number. Prime example of how text can become misconstrued.

Point is, if the winds favor one runway over the other than that is the active, and I see no problem with "declaring" that. But, I suppose there are pilots who go like to go against the grain.
 
AIM says use the runway number. Saying "the active" is just wrong. AIM 4-1-9 c


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ryanb said:
No, I never say "left downwind for the active" I always say the runway number. Prime example of how text can become misconstrued.

Point is, if the winds favor one runway over the other than that is the active, and I see no problem with "declaring" that. But, I suppose there are pilots who go like to go against the grain.
Click to expand...
You are so adamant on the correctness of "declaring" the active, I'm not sure I misconstrued. Formal definition aside, a "declaration" is rarely meant to apply to the speaker or describe the speaker's actions; "departing 32," "taxiing 32" tells everyone which runway is being used by the speaker and which runway the speaker thinks is best. "Declaring" is more often used to tell others what they should do. Why some folks like to regulate other people is beyond me, but it is what it is. As I said, I don't really care; I see "the active" like "with you," as useless surplussage that does't inform me of anything useful (other than that the pilot is no longer on any runway). Mentioning the runway numbers is useful. It tells me what the traffic is using.

And, yes, there will most definitely be pilots who, despite your "declaration" that everyone else should use runway 6 because the winds are 150 at 7, will choose to use runway 24.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You are so adamant on the correctness of "declaring" the active, I'm not sure I misconstrued. Formal definition aside, a "declaration" is rarely meant to apply to the speaker or describe the speaker's actions; "departing 32," "taxiing 32" tells everyone which runway is being used by the speaker and which runway the speaker thinks is best. "Declaring" is more often used to tell others what they should do. Why some folks like to regulate other people is beyond me, but it is what it is. As I said, I don't really care; I see "the active" like "with you," as useless surplussage that does't inform me of anything useful (other than that the pilot is no longer on any runway). Mentioning the runway numbers is useful. It tells me what the traffic is using.

And, yes, there will most definitely be pilots who, despite your "declaration" that everyone else should use runway 6 because the winds are 150 at 7, will choose to use runway 24.
Click to expand...
Im not adamant about any declaration of the "active." I was only quoting that word because it's been used numerous times to describe such a "dangerous" action that shouldn't be done. The way I view it, if you want to use the word "declare" is simply that somebody has stated that the winds are favoring a particular runway. Whether it be the folks in the FBO or someone else in the pattern. Not that it's been used in a dictating sense that you must follow what has been said, because it's ultimately up to the pilot.

Bottom line that I've been trying to make is that at a non-towered field the direction the wind sock blows determines the active runway. The pilot can choose what they wish to do from that point. I think this whole topic has been made way too complicated over a subject that is very simple.

Again, never have I said that I announce "downwind for the active." I always specify a runway number. Something has been misconstrued for that idea to have been gathered.
 
gsengle said:
AIM says use the runway number. Saying "the active" is just wrong. AIM 4-1-9 c


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And the AIM is regulatory?


Skip Miller said:
The best Unicom call I have heard from the kid at the FBO, in response to a request to "say active," was "recent arrivals have been using runway 12". This gets the message across and prevents the now 121 page thread (and counting) thread about the active...
Click to expand...

Jesus weeps.

When aviation starts trying to get PC as to not offend the self proclaimed expert weekend warriors.
 
Whenever I'm clear of the runway at a non towered airport I just say, "clear of all runways" to avoid any confusion that may come up. I always announce what runway I'm departing from as well.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've also landed on a runway before another airplane had taxied off at a towered airport. First time, I said I was going to go around and ATS replied I was cleared to land "sufficient spacing."
Click to expand...
I had a retired USAF Col as a primary flight instructor - in a semi-similar situation, he told me to go around, and made the radio call; tower said something to the effect that there was "sufficient room" or such. His response to tower was basically "I'm not asking permission, I'm telling you what we're doing". He really wasn't a jerk, and actually a pretty laid back guy. I think he was using it as a teaching moment, making sure I understood that a clearance isn't a command, and the final call is up to the pilot. Tower got pretty icy after that, but I also noticed he didn't give a ****e, which was also a teaching opportunity. Bottom line was to cooperate, but if it isn't the right thing for you to do, then make a decisive call. Filter out the annoyance - they'll get over, or not, but either way, if going around is what you need to do, then do it.
 
Sundancer said:
I had a retired USAF Col as a primary flight instructor - in a semi-similar situation, he told me to go around, and made the radio call; tower said something to the effect that there was "sufficient room" or such. His response to tower was basically "I'm not asking permission, I'm telling you what we're doing". He really wasn't a jerk, and actually a pretty laid back guy. I think he was using it as a teaching moment, making sure I understood that a clearance isn't a command, and the final call is up to the pilot. Tower got pretty icy after that, but I also noticed he didn't give a ****e, which was also a teaching opportunity. Bottom line was to cooperate, but if it isn't the right thing for you to do, then make a decisive call. Filter out the annoyance - they'll get over, or not, but either way, if going around is what you need to do, then do it.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you - 110%. One of the biggest problems with pilots is treating ATC instructions as commands from a superior being. They can be wrong, they make mistakes and, most important, they are comfortably indoors in a tower managing sequencing while we are in the air managing some other kinds of risks. And it's not just newbies.

I usually use two examples to illustrate. Here's one. I was checking out a 20 gazillion hour retired airline pilot in a 172. Which is pretty funny to begin with, but he had been away fro GA for a while. We were coming in to land on one of the N-S runways of our 3-runway airport; the third runway was E-W. The winds were pretty strong from the west. After being cleared to land on a long straight-in, he said, "It's been a while since I've done a crosswind landing in a 172, so you might have to help." Thinking there might be a better "teaching moment" than the crosswind landing, I replied, "Or you can ask for the other runway." He looked at me like I had three eyes. Having spend so many years in an environment where ATC leads airplanes around, it had simply not occurred to him.

BTW, after we asked for and were cleared for the other runway, a meek voice came over the radio. "Can we have that runway too?"
 
Lindberg said:
I'm just here to count how many times people will refer to uncontrolled fields while arguing about the importance of proper terminology.:popcorn:
Click to expand...
Well, the term is used extensively in FAA publications, and has been for decades. For example, "uncontrolled airport"
appears 14 times in the AIM compared to 4 for "nontowered" and zero for "pilot-controlled."

I definitely prefer "nontowered" and I suspect the AIM references will change as sections are amended, but it is a fairly recent change and is basically aviation's version of politically correct language. IMO the change is primarily because is just sounds better to the non-flying public.
 
The only reason "clear of the active" is not a good thing to say is that it is ambiguous. Other pilots may not know what runway you are talking about. Obviously whatever runway(s) people are using are "active".
 
airheadpenguin said:
I typically fly out of a towered field, so this behavior of having a touch and go use a runway with another aircraft on it even if taxiing seems odd and contrary to safety.
Click to expand...
This is strange to me unless your towered airport is very slow or you don't have much time. As a pilot, I've been on the runway with other aircraft at controlled fields and have had multiple planes on the runway together as a controller. Between planes like most of us fly (Cat I) the required separation between arrival/arrival is 3000ft. So if a plane is following you and wants a touch and go, as the controller I tell them cleared to land and hold on the runway, I'll call your departure. It allows for everyone to get what they want safely. At uncontrolled fields, I use roughly the same runway separation standard without ATC telling me to do it. It's legal and safe.
 
:popcorn:

Aircraft on the runway, I'm going around, especially when planning a touch and go, why take the chance? And especially on a runway where a back taxi is needed to clear and you are not in communication with the AC on the ground, bad juju.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well, the term is used extensively in FAA publications, and has been for decades. For example, "uncontrolled airport"
appears 14 times in the AIM compared to 4 for "nontowered" and zero for "pilot-controlled."

I definitely prefer "nontowered" and I suspect the AIM references will change as sections are amended, but it is a fairly recent change and is basically aviation's version of politically correct language. IMO the change is primarily because is just sounds better to the non-flying public.
Click to expand...
Non-towered also means something, while uncontrolled doesn't. At the airport where I often fly, E starts at 700', so I'm in uncontrolled airspace when I take off, but in controlled airspace in the pattern. Another nearby airport has E to the surface. And yet another is within a different airport's D. All are non-towered. Are they all also uncontrolled? What about a private strip that's under the B surface area? Uncontrolled is pretty ambiguous and often wrong.

What was this thread about again?
 
Touch and goes increase risk... increasing risk on purpose is unsafe... therefore if you're doing T&Gs you're being unsafe and being unsafe makes you a bad pilot!
 
James331 said:
You also can pick to drive south bound on a north bound road, or try to exercise your right of way as a pedestrian with a semi truck in a iced road.

Saying the active is no bueno, but "the key" is cool?? :rolleyes:

Guess I'm a pro trying to sounds like newbie lol\

But as far as any runway you want being the active, no matter of the traffic sounds a lot like

If you got folks in the pattern for one runway, you taxi off and say clear the active, every single pilot working that runway knows exactly what you're talking about.

Say something about "the key" and not so much,
Click to expand...


No, you're just sounding like you're looking for a needless argument. Are you even reading what he's saying?
At my local airfield, the winds are almost always crosswind. Whether the winds is favoring 02 or 20 can switch every 30 minutes. If you say you're doing X on "the active" I have no idea which side of the runway you're on. The winds might have shifted to favor a different direction than they were an hour ago when you stopped for lunch.

Just because people are in the pattern for 02 doesn't mean that should be the direction they're landing in. People tend to just follow others, often without looking at the windsock. Then they wonder why they had to lock up their brakes at the end of the runway after the tailwind gave then an extra 10-15mph groundspeed.
 
James331 said:
And the AIM is regulatory?

Jesus weeps.

When aviation starts trying to get PC as to not offend the self proclaimed expert weekend warriors.
Click to expand...

Are you one of those grumpy old retired people that argues because they have nothing better to do?
 
UngaWunga said:
No, you're just sounding like you're looking for a needless argument. Are you even reading what he's saying?
At my local airfield, the winds are almost always crosswind. Whether the winds is favoring 02 or 20 can switch every 30 minutes. If you say you're doing X on "the active" I have no idea which side of the runway you're on. The winds might have shifted to favor a different direction than they were an hour ago when you stopped for lunch.

Just because people are in the pattern for 02 doesn't mean that should be the direction they're landing in. People tend to just follow others, often without looking at the windsock. Then they wonder why they had to lock up their brakes at the end of the runway after the tailwind gave then an extra 10-15mph groundspeed.
Click to expand...

Depending on your skill, but I'd take a tailwind over playing chicken with weekend warriors and students anyday.


UngaWunga said:
Are you one of those grumpy old retired people that argues because they have nothing better to do?
Click to expand...

Nope, actually probably younger than most on the board, and I doubt I'll retire till I die, I ain't no socialist ;)

I wasn't arguing, I was stating that the AIM is not the FAR, and lots of us working pilots will say "clear the active" at non towered airports, and I have yet to EVER see it cause confusion.

So getting ones panties in a wad over it is just silly.

And saying I'll pick whatever runway I want, regardless of what the flow of traffic is doing, well that's acting like a petulant child, and making more risk than saying "clear the active" ever, even in its wildest dreams, could.
 
What In Tarnation Clapet.jpg

Wow! Amazing how this discussion goes on and on about nothing. Y'all be careful up there now, ya heah! Last one to the keyhole buys the first round. Meet you at the keyhole! :rofl:
 
Almost 5 pages deep! We can do it folks.

We need to petition the FAA to mandate the removal of all 'keyholes'... 'keyholes' are confusing and reduce the margin of safety which directly relates to accidents. You are 43% more likely to have a collision at an airport with a 'keyhole' than without.
 
mscard88 said:
View attachment 50382

Wow! Amazing how this discussion goes on and on about nothing. Y'all be careful up there now, ya heah! Last one to the keyhole buys the first round. Meet you at the keyhole! :rofl:
Click to expand...

keyhole-bar-grill.jpg
 
OkieAviator said:
Touch and goes increase risk... increasing risk on purpose is unsafe... therefore if you're doing T&Gs you're being unsafe and being unsafe makes you a bad pilot!
Click to expand...

Increasing risk on purpose makes you a bold pilot. Increasing risk out of ignorance makes you a statistic.
 
Bucksnort landing strip we never say "active" cause the ones just tuning in won't know which is active cause they werent there fer the previous chatter. Thank you, you old grump!
 
If you don't know which one to takeoff from, go to the middle. Thet way ya kin tak off on ether un'. BS. THEWY! :)
 
I always use the runway number taxiing around and in the pattern / on approach. When heading in for fuel, hangar or ramp, I mostly just say "clear." But I rarely go anywhere busy, either.
 
If you gripe about someone saying the are clearing the "active," you probably jump all over them if they mention tarmac (which doesn't exist at any airport in the US that I've ever seen).
 
Pilots don't declare a runway active. Pilots declare what runway THEY are using. Ive been on base for 11 when there was a plane taking off on 29. We were both talking and I saw him and told him I saw him. It was not a problem. I passed safely above him on final while he was below me on climbout. Nothing wrong with not liking that situation and initiating a pattern exit to try again, if that is what you decide to do either.

Don't even use the wording "active runway". Just use the runway number instead.
"But I've always used that wording. Thats how my instructor taught me." counters Joe Pilot. Sorry Joe, you were taught wrong. Make the change. Start doing it right. And if you are a CFI stop teaching it that way.

The reason its wrong to use the wording active is not everyone has been listening and observing the runway traffic like you have. There may be planes that just tuned in the frequency both taxiing out and flying in. You THINK you told everyone what runway you are using, but you haven't. You just said you are using the "active" and there are pilots that don't know what runway you think that is. There is no "active" runway. There is more than one runway and the pilot announces what runway he is using!!
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
The only reason "clear of the active" is not a good thing to say is that it is ambiguous. Other pilots may not know what runway you are talking about. Obviously whatever runway(s) people are using are "active".
Click to expand...
THIS. Some pilots here apparently thrive on ambiguity, because, hey, it's their sky... :rolleyes:
 
flyingron said:
If you gripe about someone saying the are clearing the "active," you probably jump all over them if they mention tarmac (which doesn't exist at any airport in the US that I've ever seen).
Click to expand...
No, those guys get beaten to a pulp on the ramp.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Pilots don't declare a runway active. Pilots declare what runway THEY are using. Ive been on base for 11 when there was a plane taking off on 29. We were both talking and I saw him and told him I saw him. It was not a problem. I passed safely above him on final while he was below me on climbout. Nothing wrong with not liking that situation and initiating a pattern exit to try again, if that is what you decide to do either.

Don't even use the wording "active runway". Just use the runway number instead.
"But I've always used that wording. Thats how my instructor taught me." counters Joe Pilot. Sorry Joe, you were taught wrong. Make the change. Start doing it right. And if you are a CFI stop teaching it that way.

The reason its wrong to use the wording active is not everyone has been listening and observing the runway traffic like you have. There may be planes that just tuned in the frequency both taxiing out and flying in. You THINK you told everyone what runway you are using, but you haven't. You just said you are using the "active" and there are pilots that don't know what runway you think that is. There is no "active" runway. There is more than one runway and the pilot announces what runway he is using!!
Click to expand...

"Cessna 2AK is clear the active"

"Cessna 2AK, this is Piper 1AC, what runway are you guys using down there"

Done

Or listen for a second BEFORE you talk and you'll figure out what runways in use, never heard anyone say "downwind the active" it's always "downwind 14" or whatever.

If you're just flying in without monitoring as you approach, or if you're on the ground and can't use those eyeballs to figure out what runway the other planes in the pattern are landing on...
 
I never say "the active", ever. Why give less information when you could give more with the same effort and number of words?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top