PSA: Don't be rude on the radio

On May 10, 10:12 pm, Blanche wrote:
buttman wrote:
Is this a joke? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Can you read?
Assuming you can, go back and read the first sentence I wrote.

I know I could have handled that situation a little better. Hindsight
is always 20/20. I accept full responsibility for me turning in front
of him. I have never said anything to the contrary. What on earth
makes you think I'm making excuses?

Are you saying the Cirrus guy was in the right to say what he said on
the radio? You think what I did gave him the right to act as
unprofessionally as he did? Or do you think what he said and how he
said it was indeed professional?

Stop whining and get a thicker skin. It happens. So what? You expect
everyone around you to be explicit adherents to Miss Manners?


I'm not whining. I started this thread to make others aware that being
a jackass over the radio is not at all constructive. I just used those
three events to make my point. People make threads like this all the
time here. It's a subject matter that I felt needed some attention, so
I thought I'd write up some experiences I have and get a discussion
going. Sheesh, I thought people would actually appreciate my effort.
Silly me. Next time I just won't bother, would that make you happier?

Not only that, all we have read is your perception of the event.

I give the Cirrus guy total benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is normally
a very nice guy who is never short with people. Maybe he was having a
bad day, and me turning in front of him (for the 10th time I agree was
totally my fault) caused him to snap. I didn't snap back at him
(something I'd NEVER do), nor did I feel it necessary to peruse the
matter further with him. The fact of the matter is, I handled the
resulting situation professionally, he did not. When something like
that happens, both parties must act responsibly no matter which one
"caused" the situation in the first place. Heck, I've had people pull
out in front me a few times. Did I overreact? No. Even though I may
have had the "right" to get all snappy.

And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?

And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
should judge me by my words, not my credentials. Thats the thing that
****es me off about this group; people think having credentials
automatically makes your word concrete. In the other thread I made a
few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments. I'm here to
argue and debate, not play the stupid "who has the biggest e-penis"
game. Anyways, even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
say I made the number up...

On 10 May 2007 22:50:25 -0700, buttman wrote in
.com:

even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
say I made the number up...

If you provide your true name and state of residence, your
certificates may be searched on the FAA web site, not to mention what
it would do for your credibility compared to your present pseudonym.

Aside from those who prefer to criticize you, can you provide any
regulatory statute against what occurred on the radio? As far as I
understand, the FAA authorizes (presumably with the concurrence of the
FCC) the self-announcement broadcast of position and intentions by
pilots at non-towered airports as set forth in Advisory Circular
AC90-42F below.

You will note, that it does NOT authorize _two-way_ communication
between aircraft, so it would seem that such _two-way_ communication
may be contrary to FAA policy if not regulation. (That's not to say
that two-way communication between pilots isn't useful at times.) This
is an issue you might consider discussing with the local FSDO
inspector for a more definitive answer (hopefully).



http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...A?OpenDocument
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers

9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSITION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended flight activity or ground
operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily
at airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport.
...
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted
that aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be
making self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM
frequency. To help identify one airport from another, the airport
name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each
self-announce transmission.

(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE),
(DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE)
RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *

(2) outbound:
$TRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX, DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION),
CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
(TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC PRACTICE (TYPE)
APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.


12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNCATIONS PROCEDURES.
...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:29:04 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :

Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are
aligned
with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?



http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/F.HTM
FINAL APPROACH [ICAO]- That part of an instrument approach
procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
point, or where such a fix or point is not specified.

a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified; or

b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
aerodrome from which:

1. A landing can be made; or

2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.

FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument
approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all
without regard to distance.

FINAL APPROACH FIX- The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to
an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the
final approach segment. It is designated on Government charts by
the Maltese Cross symbol for nonprecision approaches and the
lightning bolt symbol for precision approaches; or when ATC
directs a lower-than-published glideslope/path intercept altitude,
it is the resultant actual point of the glideslope/path intercept.

And if you are in an NORDO Aeronca Champ doing touch and goes on Sunday
afternoon how do you determine it?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:20:24 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :

It also defines "final" as
the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
course or is aligned with a landing area.


Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
the FAF. Easy.


So if you are on a VFR flight doing a straight in you are never on final?

Jim Stewart wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)

Now everything makes a little more sense.

Thanks for pointing out the history.


If he keeps doing that, he may not be posting for long.

"buttman" wrote in message
oups.com...
And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?

And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
should judge me by my words, not my credentials.

Quite to the contrary, it's your "words" that make some pilots on these
groups question your "credentials".
Although its a fact that you don't have to post your real name on these
groups, its also a fact that many new student pilots frequent these groups.
For that reason, most of the pilots and instructors who post here are very
careful with the information they present. Although ALL information
presented on Usenet should be checked for accuracy, there is always a
potential flight safety factor in play here, especially when someone posts
using a CFI format.
I've read your posts and I have serious questions about you. Basically I'm
concerned not so much about the statements you have made but rather the
questions you have asked. In my opinion, if you are indeed a CFI as you have
stated on these groups, you should already know the answers to the questions
you are asking.
So I have a double problem with you. Your questions are suspect to me, and
your overall reasoning is suspect as well.
You are correct when you say that credentials on Usenet are not as important
as the information posted. The pilots here have been reading each other as
well as newbies for many years. Our opinions on the validity of a post is
based on years of actual experience reading what an individual poster has to
say.
With this in mind, and based only on the information you have posted to
these groups, I have to tell you that in my opinion you are either posing as
a flight instructor or a completely ill prepared CFI.
As I have said before, I personally will give you a great deal more
lattitude on the piloting group than I will on the student group. As someone
who has invested a great deal of time and effort in the instruction
business, I naturally have an aversion to bad information and will say so
when presented with same. This has nothing at all to do with being a "Usenet
Bully".



Thats the thing that
****es me off about this group; people think having credentials
automatically makes your word concrete.

Again, your reasoning and deduction is suspect.
If you will notice, hardly anyone on these groups stresses credentials. Most
of us mention them only in passing. We all realize that it's the information
that actually establishes the "credentials" on these groups. Respect here
has been earned through hundreds and in some cases thousands of postings
containing information that those reading the posts know to be factual and
correct. In this manner, "credentials" are earned on Usenet, and by no other
means.


In the other thread I made a
few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments.

Actually its longer than that, and you received precise and direct argument
stating exactly why as a CFI you don't turn off the fuel on takeoff. The
fact that you even asked this question and posed this scenario is one of the
prime reasons I suspect that you are either not a CFI or a VERY poor one.
You will notice that I'm questioning your information as well as your
"credentials."



I'm here to
argue and debate, not play the stupid "who has the biggest e-penis"
game. Anyways, even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
say I made the number up...


Again, your powers of deductive reasoning are in my opinion, suspect.
It is not the purpose of these groups to "argue and debate". The purpose of
these groups is to SHARE useful and accurate data and information about
flying and aviation.
Its fine to argue your point, and its fine to engage in debate, but to enter
these groups for the specific purpose of arguing and debating shows a basic
lack of understanding for why the majority of people engage on these pilot
forums.
Dudley Henriques

On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:42:17 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :


And if you are in an NORDO Aeronca Champ doing touch and goes on Sunday
afternoon how do you determine it?


My guess would be, that the same FAAO 7110.65 PCG definitions apply to
all flights including NORDO flights, as well as those who choose not
to participate in the position and intentions broadcasts

To determine if it's appropriate to begin the turns to the base and
final legs of the landing pattern, the NORDO pilot on downwind would
use the same method pilots of aircraft with electrical systems use,
the Mark I Eyeball.

If visibility is three miles in Class E airspace surrounding the
non-towered airport, and there is an inbound IFR flight past the five
mile distant FAF in line with the runway centerline, the NORDO pilot
won't be able to visually acquire the conflicting IFR traffic that has
the right of way. But, a Champ could land and be tied down before
there is an opportunity for a MAC.

At one mile visibility in Class G airspace, the Champ would probably
still not be too much of a hazard to the IFR arrival if its pilot made
a short approach. However, if the NORDO Champ turns base up against
the face of a cumulus cloud, there is potential for an 'aluminum
thunder shower', but the same would be true for radio equipped
aircraft despite the pilot being aware of the position and intentions
broadcast by the IFR arrival.

Do you see it differently?

On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:44:59 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:20:24 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :

It also defines "final" as
the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
course or is aligned with a landing area.


Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
the FAF. Easy.


So if you are on a VFR flight doing a straight in you are never on final?

On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:44:59 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:20:24 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :

It also defines "final" as
the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
course or is aligned with a landing area.


Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
the FAF. Easy.


So if you are on a VFR flight doing a straight in you are never on final?


Not the way I see it.

If you are aligned with the runway centerline VFR inbound, past the
FAF fix if there is a published instrument approach, I would say your
flight meets the PCG definition of being on the final approach leg of
the landing pattern. If there is no published FAF, (again, as in my
answer to your previous question in Message-ID:
qv) there are issues
governed by the prevailing metrological conditions and the class of
airspace in which the flight is being conducted.

I realize you are attempting to point out, that there are often
instances where the flight on downwind will inadvertently violate the
first sentence of CFR Title 14, Part 91 §91.113(g):


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text... .1.3.10.2.4.7
(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.

But the second sentence of §91.113(g) above relating to the relative
altitudes of the aircraft makes that interpretation a bit ambiguous.

In practice, the point you are attempting to make is probably moot, as
I'm not aware of a significant number of MACs resulting from
§91.113(g) violations.

But you might do some research on the NTSB aviation accident database
to verify your concern: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

On May 11, 6:59 am, "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
"buttman" wrote in message

oups.com...

And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?

And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
should judge me by my words, not my credentials.

Quite to the contrary, it's your "words" that make some pilots on these
groups question your "credentials".

What are some of these 'words' that makes you think i'm one of the
worlds worst instructors? Just give me an example. I've made less than
100 posts on this group since I started using usenet back in 2005, and
I've made a whopping 5 posts on r.a.s, so finding one shouldn't be
hard.

Although its a fact that you don't have to post your real name on these
groups, its also a fact that many new student pilots frequent these groups.
For that reason, most of the pilots and instructors who post here are very
careful with the information they present. Although ALL information
presented on Usenet should be checked for accuracy, there is always a
potential flight safety factor in play here, especially when someone posts
using a CFI format.

I'm not following you. How does my CFI number have anything to do with
new students reading this group?

I've read your posts and I have serious questions about you. Basically I'm
concerned not so much about the statements you have made but rather the
questions you have asked.

What questions should a CFI be asking, and what questions shouldn't be
asked? Or do you think CFI's should not ask questions at all? If
you're referring to the fuel valve incident, I thought it was a valid
question. You have 2 miles of runway which was 150 feet wide, a low
horsepower engine (so no huge yaw), and me on board who can take over
if the student locks up. I admit it's pushing some safety boundaries,
but so does completely shutting down one engine in a twin, or a
simulated engine failure (via the throttle) in the traffic pattern...
Hell, TAKING OFF in even a perfectly airworthy airplane is pushing
certain safety boundaries.

In my opinion, if you are indeed a CFI as you have
stated on these groups, you should already know the answers to the questions
you are asking.
So I have a double problem with you. Your questions are suspect to me, and
your overall reasoning is suspect as well.
You are correct when you say that credentials on Usenet are not as important
as the information posted. The pilots here have been reading each other as
well as newbies for many years. Our opinions on the validity of a post is
based on years of actual experience reading what an individual poster has to
say.

With this in mind, and based only on the information you have posted to
these groups, I have to tell you that in my opinion you are either posing as
a flight instructor or a completely ill prepared CFI.
As I have said before, I personally will give you a great deal more
lattitude on the piloting group than I will on the student group. As someone
who has invested a great deal of time and effort in the instruction
business, I naturally have an aversion to bad information and will say so
when presented with same.

Get over yourself.

This has nothing at all to do with being a "Usenet
Bully".

I never called you or anyone a usenet bully. "Internet tough guy" is
someone who feels the need to act like a tough guy over the internet
over something they wouldn't dare do in real life. It's like me saying
if my piano teacher played a wrong note I'm going to get up and yell
into her face "YOU'RE FIRED". In the real world its a cumulation of
small things, or one big thing that causes someone to get tired.
Accidentally pulling in front of a straight in is not something a sane
person would fire their CFI over. It's just ridiculous.

Again, your reasoning and deduction is suspect.
If you will notice, hardly anyone on these groups stresses credentials.

Are you kidding? Just about everyone has their real name / location /
certificates held in their signature. I've been using internet
discussion forums since the early 2000's, and I've never been part of
a group that does that. I've even been part of professional groups,
with doctors post
about medical matters, lawyers post about legal matters, pilots post
about aviation matters; none of them do that.

I've spoke with real life CFI's, including examiners, very high time
instructors, ex-FAA inspectors, and they all have treated me with
respect. This is the only group that feels the need to jump down my
throat.

In the other thread I made a
few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments.

Actually its longer than that, and you received precise and direct argument
stating exactly why as a CFI you don't turn off the fuel on takeoff.

People compared what I was doing with shutting down one engine in a
twin (which I completely agree is unsafe during takeoff regardless of
the runway length). They posted accident reports where someone stalled/
spun on takeoff and the plane was found to have the fuel valve turned
off; not the same situation.

Everyone just kneejerk reacted to me challenging their already held
beliefs. Instead of acknowledging I had some points, they just all
made me out to be a crazy madman. It's easier to do that, than it is
to change your way of thinking.

Again, your powers of deductive reasoning are in my opinion, suspect.
It is not the purpose of these groups to "argue and debate". The purpose of
these groups is to SHARE useful and accurate data and information about
flying and aviation.

And what on earth is the difference?