On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:49 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote in
2008052923274916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
pilots are saying on the radio.

Respectfully, CJ,

That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
booted out of my cockpit.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.


My statement was that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
position and intentions. Please provide the rationale that leads you
to believe that that equates to "obsessing about whether another pilot
is misusing the radio."

You know, I listen to what other pilots have to say on the radio. I
simply do not have time to criticize what they say or grade them on
their performance. Guys like Larry are one reason that student pilots
are afraid of using the radio. They are terrified of offending some
radio nanny who is going to stomp all over them for saying "please
advise," a phrase that they may hear all the time from professional
pilots.

Because I stated that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
position and intentions, I would like to know how you managed to infer
that I might "stomp all over them." Your conclusion makes no sense to
me, and reflects you lack of logic in teaching your students to
disregard regulations.

I have heard a pilot ream a student over the air on the tower
frequency for a solid ten minutes because he thought the student was
stumbling on his transmissions too much. How is that for misusing the
radio?


I hope you're not trying to imply that I might do such a thing, or
that such a transmission is permitted by FAA regulations. The pilot
who did it should be referred to a FSDO inspector, and if I were the
student who was the subject of his abuse, that is exactly what I'd do.

It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
news groups like this.

If you are experiencing difficulty instructing your students in the
proper use of radio communications as a result of the discussion that
takes place in this newsgroup, your instruction technique need work.
The source of your difficulty may be your choice to instruct your
students to deviate from federal regulations, but such a conclusion is
unlikely, as it would require YOU to take responsibility for YOUR
PROBLEM instead of ridiculously blaming the newsgroup.


Limiting your communication to simply announcing your position is
stupid and dangerous.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion. My opinion is compliant
with FAA guidelines, yours is not. Perhaps you'd care to explain why
your instruction is contrary to FAA recommendations, and what leads
you to believe that compliance with FARs is stupid and dangerous?

There is absolutely no reason not to be clear in
who is going to be landing first, for example.

While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft
participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system
at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it
being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars, AIM nor
being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such
negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080515_wz_roanokecrash.103382c61.html,
the mishap may not have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the
logic of that point of view in this mishap? Can you appreciate, that
deviating from FARs causes a safety hazard? 91.113 dictates that the
pilot farther along toward the runway threshold on final approach will
be landing first unless some arrogant know-it-all decides to deviate
from federal regulations.

Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the
airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator
has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override
those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than
91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that
authority to deviate from federal regulations?

If there is any doubt about another pilot's intentions you should be
free to ask rather than be silent for fear of 'misusing' the radio.

Why would there be any doubt? The right-of-way is established in FAR
91.113. Only those pilots who deviate from it create doubt. If ALL
comply with 91.113, the FAA believes that pattern operations will be
orderly and safe, or it seems to me they would have mentioned
negotiating deviations from regulations as being appropriate in their
literature and regulations.

Similarly, I think it is better to say "I don't see you" instead of
keeping silent and hitting someone mid-air.

What leads you to believe that saying "I don't see you" prevents MACs.
I beg you; please do attempt enlighten me on this subject.


I swear, there seem to be an awful lot of idiots around here who are
determined to be 'right,' even if it kills them. People who are so
fanatical about not breaking some imagined rule prohibiting air-to-air
communication that they are willing to die to prove a point are, IMHO,
psychologically unfit to be pilots.

Actually, I think it is those pilots who believe they know better than
the FAA, and deviate from FAA guidelines, or fail to appreciate the
wisdom inherent in the FARs who are operationally unfit to be pilots.

In the accident cited above, the Stinson pilot attempted to deviate
from 91.113(g). That attempt to deviate from FAA regulations resulted
in his attempting to takeoff while another aircraft was on final
approach. If he had complied with 91.113(g), and waited for the
landing traffic, it would not have landed on top of him. Even you, in
your current mental state should be capable of seeing the fundamental
truth in that, hopefully.