Bothering a Pilot on Final

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:c9458843-efb4-
:

On May 30, 8:45 am, Cubdriver usenet AT danford DOT net wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:27:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
I've never heard excessive chatter

Now that it's coming on to summer, I find that it's a rare
flight--especially on a fine Friday, Saturday, or Sunday--when I
don't
hear excessive chatter. Today it was a long-drawn-out conversation at
Spencer airport in Massachusetts. Somebody was heading south. They
discussed the destination, and in what plane. Then a volley of "Have
a
good day" "Yeah you too" and all that sh*t. It seemed to go on for
five minutes, but I suppose it was only two or three.

Is there provision for mis-use of communications?
I read there was, but I don't recall it being applied.
If I was a controller, it would drive me batty hearing
that drivel constipate the control frequency.


Oow! imagine how much that would improve if oyu ever actually flew.



Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 29, 11:27 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
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.

Obsessing is a harsh word, consider the communications
foul-up that killed 500 people,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerif...tion_misunders
t
andings

Personally, I think most pilots formulate what
they are going to say prior to keying the mike,
to provide controller with who I am, position and
intent, clearly and briefly, and of course other
pilots hear that brief to.
I've never heard excessive chatter, tho I got a
little close to a fella flying NORDO, who flew
under me while I was on final, so I aborted and
did another circuit.
...
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.

Radio work is quite easy, just go talk to the local
controller and he'll brief you, he's the pro

I'm sure they'd be thrilled to see you Kenny.


Bertie

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.

On May 30, 3:01 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
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/wfaa080...,
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.
Agreed Larry
Maybe I got lucky, but in my ground school
a controller came in and did a 1 hour lecture
and removed all ambiguity on radio com.
He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
needed to know, succintly.
Made complete common sense to me.
Ken

He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
needed to know, succintly

Clarity and brevity are not one of Larry's strong points. He also lacks a
little in the departments of flexibility and accepting the opinions of
others.

On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:59:17 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
needed to know, succintly

Clarity and brevity are not one of Larry's strong points. He also lacks a
little in the departments of flexibility and accepting the opinions of
others.


Colonel, please state how you believe 'accepting the opinions of
others' relates to participation in the self-announce position and
intention broadcasts on CTAF at uncontrolled airports, the subject of
the article to which you followed up.

You're just still smarting from being enlightened about MOA airspace
not being reserved for the exclusive use of military pilots, and the
inapplicability of MARSA to civilian flights, as you apparently
believed. Don't take it personally, Jim. We all participate on
Usenet to learn, don't we?

Unfortunately, attacking the author of an article, instead of
addressing the points contained within the article, does not
contribute to the discussion. Rather, such personal attacks serve to
underscore the attacker's lack of a reasonable rebuttal, and
frustration at the inadequacy of their ability to articulate their
thoughts.

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:05:44 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

You're just still smarting from being enlightened about MOA airspace
not being reserved for the exclusive use of military pilots, and the
inapplicability of MARSA to civilian flights, as you apparently
believed. Don't take it personally, Jim. We all participate on
Usenet to learn, don't we?

A little nonsense
Now and then
Relished by
The wisest men. ~W. Wonka

--
Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But I like an orgy, once in a while.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

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.



Actually, it is the pilots who don't understand that rules are for the
guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools, to quote Douglass
Bader, that are a problem.


In the accident cited above, the Stinson pilot attempted to deviate
from 91.113(g).

You don't know that.
Fool.


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.
Agreed Larry
Maybe I got lucky, but in my ground school
a controller came in and did a 1 hour lecture
and removed all ambiguity on radio com.
He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
needed to know, succintly.
Made complete common sense to me.


You're an idiot.

Clear and brief enough for you?


Bertie

On 2008-05-30 03:01:27 -0700, Larry Dighera said:

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

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.

Oh, grow up, Larry. My students learn to use the radios just fine --
and in accordance with FAA regulations, thank you very much.

As for the rest of your post, it provides ample evidence of exactly
what I said.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:49 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

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. 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?

Don't worry, this SP has a quick five word answer.

"Roger that, go **** yourself."