Unannounced flight/takeoff

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous please
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous please

Guest
I went to an airport for lunch today, there were 11-12 GA planes there, long lines. When we were to leave, the plane next to us had started up just before us.
Let's call the opposing runways xx and YY. They announced back taxi YY, we saw them go by us on the runway from our parked position before we moved. I thought they seemed a bit slow but I did see them lift off about mid runway where. I started to move in the grass and about the time I was to turn to get onto the runway they flew very low as if they had either departed xx or did a low approach. At the time I had thought that they had changed their mind on takeoff and did so from the other end, without radio calls. Regardless, they were very low over the runway and increased my pucker factor. After their initial back taxi call they made no other calls.

My wife asked me about this in the air and again at home.

No harm no foul in a basketball game means shut up and play. What about aviation? Certainly at a minimum they should have made a call if they were taking off the other direction or make a low pass?
I know the tail number, owner name, and address. Not looking to make a big deal but do think to reach out to them direct.

What say you?
Would you do anything?
 
Both GPT and I are unimpressed with this.

Judgment on the Observer Pilot​


1. Misplaced reliance on radio calls.
They framed their “surprise” as if the lack of radio calls by the other pilot was the key hazard. In reality, eyes outside are always the primary tool. Radio helps with traffic coordination, but not everyone is required to use it, and radios fail. Being “startled” by an airplane on final means they hadn’t been actively clearing the approach path before moving. That’s a fundamental airmanship shortfall.


2. Poor situational grasp.
The fact that they couldn’t tell whether the airplane was coming from “YY” or “xx” shows they lost track of the traffic pattern and couldn’t orient themselves. That’s not a communication issue — it’s a failure to maintain basic awareness of where traffic is and what it’s doing.


3. The “no harm, no foul” analogy is misplaced.
In aviation, “no harm, no foul” doesn’t exist. A close call is a teachable moment, not something to shrug off. The way they framed the question suggests they were looking for a way to dismiss the event instead of analyzing their own role in maintaining vigilance.


4. Their real question (“Would you do anything?”)
The healthy answer would be:


  • Learn from it: don’t rely only on radio, visually clear before you enter a runway.
  • Maybe file a NASA report if you truly believe another pilot’s radio work created risk.
  • But no — you don’t call someone up at home to scold them when you yourself missed the bigger lesson.


Verdict​


This pilot is over-fixated on the other guy’s bad radio work and under-appreciating their own duty to see and avoid. They’re outsourcing safety to the CTAF instead of using their eyes.


If they were my student, I’d say:


“Don’t worry about whether the other pilot made calls. Radios fail. Assume no one’s talking. You clear final, you look up the pattern, you never taxi onto a runway without knowing where everyone is. You don’t get surprised by an airplane that’s plainly flying in front of you.”


So the judgment is: they’re asking the wrong question. The right one isn’t “Should I call this guy out?” but “Why was I surprised at all?”
Click to expand...

chatgpt.com

ChatGPT - Aviation communication issue

Shared via ChatGPT
chatgpt.com chatgpt.com
 
Anonymous please said:
I went to an airport for lunch today, there were 11-12 GA planes there, long lines. When we were to leave, the plane next to us had started up just before us.
Let's call the opposing runways xx and YY. They announced back taxi YY, we saw them go by us on the runway from our parked position before we moved. I thought they seemed a bit slow but I did see them lift off about mid runway where. I started to move in the grass and about the time I was to turn to get onto the runway they flew very low as if they had either departed xx or did a low approach. At the time I had thought that they had changed their mind on takeoff and did so from the other end, without radio calls. Regardless, they were very low over the runway and increased my pucker factor. After their initial back taxi call they made no other calls.

My wife asked me about this in the air and again at home.

No harm no foul in a basketball game means shut up and play. What about aviation? Certainly at a minimum they should have made a call if they were taking off the other direction or make a low pass?
I know the tail number, owner name, and address. Not looking to make a big deal but do think to reach out to them direct.

What say you?
Would you do anything?
Click to expand...

Maybe I’m just not understanding, but I’m having a hard time following the sequence of events. Assuming you are referring to an airplane performing a takeoff instead of a back taxi, that is definitely a problem. Announcing one thing and doing something else is worse than not saying anything at all, especially if ten other airplanes are all lined up to take off on the opposite runway.

But I don't understand the part about a low approach.
 
Might have gotten the back taxi direction wrong on the call. Might have forgotten to make the takeoff call after he turned around. We've all done it. If someone hunted me down to inform me of a radio mistake, I would laugh in their face.
 
Anonymous please said:
I went to an airport for lunch today, there were 11-12 GA planes there, long lines. When we were to leave, the plane next to us had started up just before us.
Let's call the opposing runways xx and YY. They announced back taxi YY, we saw them go by us on the runway from our parked position before we moved. I thought they seemed a bit slow but I did see them lift off about mid runway where. I started to move in the grass and about the time I was to turn to get onto the runway they flew very low as if they had either departed xx or did a low approach. At the time I had thought that they had changed their mind on takeoff and did so from the other end, without radio calls. Regardless, they were very low over the runway and increased my pucker factor. After their initial back taxi call they made no other calls.

My wife asked me about this in the air and again at home.

No harm no foul in a basketball game means shut up and play. What about aviation? Certainly at a minimum they should have made a call if they were taking off the other direction or make a low pass?
I know the tail number, owner name, and address. Not looking to make a big deal but do think to reach out to them direct.

What say you?
Would you do anything?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t seem you are clear on what they did.

I would send the owner a letter by registered mail pointing out this safety issue. Maybe he will send you back a registered letter stating he wasn’t the PIC that day or he sold the plane 2 weeks before the incident or an explanation what really happened or to pound salt.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Might have gotten the back taxi direction wrong on the call. Might have forgotten to make the takeoff call after he turned around. We've all done it. If someone hunted me down to inform me of a radio mistake, I would laugh in their face.
Click to expand...
Which runway do you put in the back taxi, the one in the direction you're moving or the one that is opposite your direction of motion? Anyhow, "back taxi" isn't even an FAA term anymore. You're taxiing on the runway.
 
Ed Haywood said:
If someone hunted me down to inform me of a radio mistake, I would laugh in their face.
Click to expand...
Me: “Which mistake?”

I used to spend a lot of time at an airport with three intersecting rwys. And you couldn’t see the departure end of the other rwys in most combinations. Somehow it worked, but every takeoff I had a plan. I never got comfortable there.
 
flyingron said:
Which runway do you put in the back taxi, the one in the direction you're moving or the one that is opposite your direction of motion? Anyhow, "back taxi" isn't even an FAA term anymore. You're taxiing on the runway.
Click to expand...
"Podunk traffic, bugsmasher 12345 back taxiing on the active." :stirpot:
 
Anonymous please said:
I went to an airport for lunch today, there were 11-12 GA planes there, long lines. When we were to leave, the plane next to us had started up just before us.
Let's call the opposing runways xx and YY. They announced back taxi YY, we saw them go by us on the runway from our parked position before we moved. I thought they seemed a bit slow but I did see them lift off about mid runway where. I started to move in the grass and about the time I was to turn to get onto the runway they flew very low as if they had either departed xx or did a low approach. At the time I had thought that they had changed their mind on takeoff and did so from the other end, without radio calls. Regardless, they were very low over the runway and increased my pucker factor. After their initial back taxi call they made no other calls.

My wife asked me about this in the air and again at home.

No harm no foul in a basketball game means shut up and play. What about aviation? Certainly at a minimum they should have made a call if they were taking off the other direction or make a low pass?
I know the tail number, owner name, and address. Not looking to make a big deal but do think to reach out to them direct.

What say you?
Would you do anything?
Click to expand...

If you feel like contacting, approach it like you missed something or did something wrong. This usually takes away the defensive walls people normally throw up in that situation.
I have found most people are actually pretty descent, not too many are straight up a** holes.
Therefore, what many are stating here is Hanlon's Razor: https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlons-razor

e.g. A missed call by either party, confusion on which runway is which....

Tim
 
tspear said:
If you feel like contacting, approach it like you missed something or did something wrong. This usually takes away the defensive walls people normally throw up in that situation.
I have found most people are actually pretty descent, not too many are straight up a** holes.
Therefore, what many are stating here is Hanlon's Razor: https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlons-razor

e.g. A missed call by either party, confusion on which runway is which....

Tim
Click to expand...
Yes, people LOVE having their competence challenged.
 
From the way the op is written, it's not clear to me what happened. What I understand is that a pilot announced that he was going to use the runway, and then he used the runway. The rest is a bit of a mystery. But based on the above, I don't see the safety problem. If I knew there was an aircraft on the runway, I wouldn't be on the runway, so his use of the runway seems to not affect me.

Perhaps the anonymous op will come back and clarify with some details.
 
Provided this is not AI, of which I am not convinced or there were actually two airplanes. I don't see how you can see somebody lift off at midfield then shortly later have them flying low over you at a different location.
 
My reaction at the time is that they had aborted takeoff and ended up taking off from the other direction.

Looking further at things, I think they took off, stayed 100 feet above the ground, did a 180 and made a low approach back over the runway putting on a good show for others but scaring me.

This is not AI.

I'm not sure about my motivation. At first it was to just understand what the heck happened. How had I missed it? Introspection was first. Then, it was a bit of what the heck were they doing?

I will neither confirm or deny Ercoupe.

I did read up about back taxi, they had originally used it correctly.

I agree that unexpected to be unexpected and the airport was uncontrolled.

I disagree on the A hole part. If I were an Ahole I would have followed them to their airport and accosted them on the ground, or talked to them in the air, or. not asked about this here.

I am not losing any sleep over this. It sounds like this is a basketball no harm no foul kind of thing
 
anonymous OP said:
My reaction at the time is that they had aborted takeoff and ended up taking off from the other direction.
Click to expand...
So you saw them flying in both directions? Or did they back taxi in one direction and then takeoff in the other direction? If you'd use more words and provide the details, that would help us help you.
anonymous OP said:
Looking further at things, I think they took off, stayed 100 feet above the ground, did a 180 and made a low approach back over the runway putting on a good show for others but scaring me.
Click to expand...
It sounds like a bunch of time must have passed between the back taxi call and your observation. Perhaps you did fail to observe some things. More information would help.
 
Last edited:
anonymous OP said:
I will neither confirm or deny Ercoupe.
Click to expand...
I actually did have a reason for asking. the place I was at I saw an ercoupe taxi to one runway and a cezzna taxi to the other. at this place it is quite common for people to take off/land on whatever runway they choose. I was not on the radio at the time but it seemed clear they worked everything out, as the cezzna took off, then eventually the ercoupe took off. but I can't say what may or may not have happened on the radio and I saw no 100' 180 low pass type stuff going on.
 
After reading the op I wonder if NASA reports are similarly confusing

Someone should set up a NASA report to simulator program. The entertainment value to this board would be enormous…assuming anyone actually watched the simulation
 
Sometimes brevity on the radio does not lead to clarity. I'm not sure what the official verbiage should be, but (without looking it up) I would probably have announced something like "taxiing runway 12 for departure on 30".
 
Greetings from Europe! I completely understand why your wife is still bringing it up. In aviation, the 'no harm, no foul' mindset is incredibly dangerous—in the Safety Management (SMS) world, we call this a near-miss and a free lesson.

Unpredictable maneuvers combined with radio silence at a busy non-towered airfield are a massive hazard. That being said, I would strongly advise against looking up their address or calling them directly. 9 times out of 10, reaching out privately makes the other pilot immediately defensive, and it turns into an argument rather than a constructive safety discussion. It's just human nature.

The best takeaway here is exactly what you did: keeping your head on a swivel. Radios are a great tool, but 'see and avoid' is the ultimate safety barrier because you can never guarantee the other guy is on frequency, has a working radio, or is actually doing what they just announced.

Glad you kept your eyes outside and kept your family safe. That's good airmanship!
 
schmookeeg said:
Both GPT and I are unimpressed with this.



chatgpt.com

ChatGPT - Aviation communication issue

Shared via ChatGPT
chatgpt.com chatgpt.com
Click to expand...
Maybe I am misreading the OP, but it's certainly implied he avoided a collision because he looked and saw the other plane. The question is purely whether the other plane should have made more calls and the answer is that would have been better but not required
 
Stuff happens, I have had microphones fail where I have been talking in the pattern for 30 minutes before someone said something that made me think they were not hearing me. I have had/seen radios on the wrong frequency, even seen radios with the correct frequency dialed in but certain radios could not recieve it (that was tower, ground control could hear me just fine and Tower backup radio could hear me just fine).

So from old OP, the guy might have been explaining exactly what he was doing and may or may not have been hearing anyone else, and not realizing the OP was not hearing him. Possible the OP might have been the only one not hearing also, unlikely if he was hearing others but not impossible either.

I like acknowledging other aircraft is see in the pattern. it lets them know I know they are there. It can also let other people know they are there. Instead of just saying "turning left downwind", Say things like. "Turning Left downwind, number 2" or "... have 45 traffic insight", etc.
If I do see someone on the ground afterwards that wasn't talking that I thought should be I will let them know in a nice way. Just simply hey wanted to let you know we were not hearing you in the pattern, just letting you know in case you have a radio issue that needs to be addressed.

Brian
CFIIIG/ASEL
 
Last edited:
Great points from everyone, really. This thread highlights exactly the difference between 'what the regulations require' and 'how real-world aviation safety works.'

@Alan Miles (and ChatGPT) - You are 100% legally correct. In uncontrolled airspace, 'see and avoid' is the ultimate rule, and in this case, it worked perfectly. The pilot looked outside and prevented a bad day.

@DJTorrente - 'Not uncontrolled airports, but pilot-controlled ones.' That gave me a good laugh, but it's the absolute truth! The human factor is always the biggest variable.

But I think Brian (@brcase in #32) hit the absolute nail on the head. Stuff happens. Radios fail, frequencies get fat-fingered, PTT switches stick, or people genuinely think they are transmitting when they aren't.

When we look at this from a Safety Management System (SMS) perspective—specifically using a Bow-Tie risk model—this is exactly why we need multiple, overlapping barriers.To prevent a mid-air collision, your proactive barriers are:

  1. Standard position reports (Radio)
  2. Traffic awareness/Mental mapping (Listening)
  3. Visual scanning (See & Avoid)
If Barrier #1 fails (whether it's because of a broken mic, as Brian mentioned, or just a pilot legally choosing to stay silent), the system's safety margin instantly drops. You are now relying entirely on that final barrier: human vision. We all know how blind spots, glare, and task saturation can degrade 'see and avoid'.

The system worked this time, which is awesome. But it’s a great case study on how quickly we can end up relying on a single point of failure. Brian's habit of saying 'turning left downwind, number 2' is a perfect example of adding a robust, active layer of safety back into the pattern. Great discussion!
 
Stick to Towered Fields.
Back in the day most airports in Florida were uncontrolled. I miss those days.
 
I read the OP a couple of times and still have no idea what happened
 
bonefishpete said:
Back in the day most airports in Florida were uncontrolled. I miss those days.
Click to expand...
No kidding. Holding short #5 at SUA for 25+ minutes for traffic on a 5 mile final was a bit too much. All I could think was that all five of us could've departed before the first guy touched down.
 
Remember in Florida private jets and airlines rule at controlled airports.
 
Radio isn't required as minimum standard equipment for VFR flights. What exactly would you report? Someone didn't use a radio that wasn't legally required to be used in the first place?
 
Back
Top