VFR position reporting

Robet Coffey writes:

Sometimes when flying near untowered airports I will report my position
relative to the airfield on the CTAF. If by some chance (rare) I am near
the pattern altitude when passing by I think it a good idea to advise
inbound & traffic in the pattern.

That is my belief as well. I think it's not really possible to
provide too much information to other pilots, so unless the frequency
is bursting with traffic (highly unlikely), the more information one
provides, the better, for both S&R and for other pilots who may be
nearby with no other way of knowing that you're in the area.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Robet Coffey writes:

Sometimes when flying near untowered airports I will report my
position relative to the airfield on the CTAF. If by some chance
(rare) I am near the pattern altitude when passing by I think it
a good idea to advise inbound & traffic in the pattern.

That is my belief as well. I think it's not really possible to
provide too much information to other pilots, so unless the frequency
is bursting with traffic (highly unlikely), the more information one
provides, the better, for both S&R and for other pilots who may be
nearby with no other way of knowing that you're in the area.

I'm sure that your toy comm frequenciess aren't "bursting with traffic",
but it is not at all unusual for it to be hard to get a word in edgewise
in the vicinity of an airport. If it isn't critical, I keep off the air.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

I'm sure that your toy comm frequenciess aren't "bursting with traffic" ...

In AI simulation, the level of traffic is configurable. At high
levels, and in high-traffic areas, the frequencies are continuously
busy.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

I'm sure that your toy comm frequenciess aren't "bursting with
traffic" ...

In AI simulation, the level of traffic is configurable. At high
levels, and in high-traffic areas, the frequencies are continuously
busy.

So, if such situations were "highly unlikely" as you stated, there
wouldn't be much point in providing such a simulation, would there?

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

So, if such situations were "highly unlikely" as you stated, there
wouldn't be much point in providing such a simulation, would there?

They are highly unlikely outside of heavy traffic areas, both in real
life and in simulation.

However, as a general rule, simulation provides for broader control of
circumstances than real life provides, precisely so that extreme and
improbable situations can be simulated for practice. A commercial
pilot may fly for his entire career without experience a failure of
all engines at the same time, but it's very easy to simulate, which
makes it possible for him to practice and be prepared for such a
situation should it ever actually arise. That's one of the great
advantages of simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

So, if such situations were "highly unlikely" as you stated, there
wouldn't be much point in providing such a simulation, would there?

They are highly unlikely outside of heavy traffic areas, both in real
life and in simulation.

And, you know this, how?

In fact, radio chatter is sometimes *much worse* in low traffic areas. You
can be the only one in the vicinity, but still not be able to get a word
in edgewise. And, it isn't uncommon. Let's see if you can figure out why
that is.

This is a perfect example of what several others have already told you;
you are arguing from a position of total ignorance. If you don't know the
real answer, you can not make a valid argument. Chalk up all of your
responses of this nature as 100% noise.

Neil