![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 28, 10:22 am, Dale wrote:
In article GYe%j.183758$yE1.50750@attbi_s21, "Jay Honeck" wrote: I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the field at 4500 feet, heading West..." Is that really so bad? Quite common to use an airport as a waypoint, by making the announcement it may let the other guy at 4500 overflying know to put the paper down. In Canada that kind of report is required if there is a Mandatory Freq. I recall being taught to announce a position when overflying an airport (assuming you aren't overflying by some ridiculous amount). I announce when overflying to have a look-see before joining the pattern. Someone else might be doing the same thing. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:GYe%j.183758$yE1.50750@attbi_s21: Personally, I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my position, and nothing else. I'd agree. Particularly annoying are these clods running around with handheld radios - using them to keep track of each other, coordinate lunch, etc - nothing whatsoever to do with the safety of flight. Sometimes it's better to to turn the radio off than listen to the drivel. One of the only upsides of GA flying declining is that there is far less of that noise on the radio now. Personally, I'd like to suffer with the drivel again. Well, we do have to listen to you, so... Bertie |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... Well, we do have to listen to you, so... Bertie and you, so........ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2008-05-27 11:34:06 -0700, Larry Dighera said:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT), gliderguynj wrote in : I understand the person was trying to be helpful but..... The FAA regulations and Advisory Circulars only mention broadcasting position on CTAF. There is no mention of communicating air-to-air. I know CTAF is being used for almost everything but that for which it is intended. But that doesn't make it okay. Personally, I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my position, and nothing else. Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other pilots are saying on the radio. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Mine, as well. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. 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. 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? 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. Limiting your communication to simply announcing your position is stupid and dangerous. There is absolutely no reason not to be clear in who is going to be landing first, for example. 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. Similarly, I think it is better to say "I don't see you" instead of keeping silent and hitting someone mid-air. 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. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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...understandings 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. Ken |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US Navy Test Pilot School F/A-18 turning onto final approach at KNPA today | Tom Callahan | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 2nd 07 09:45 PM |
US Navy Test Pilot School F/A-18 turning onto final approach at KNPA today | Tom Callahan | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 2nd 07 09:44 PM |
US Navy Test Pilot School F/A-18 on final approach at KNPA today | Tom Callahan | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 2nd 07 09:44 PM |
Sport Pilot Final | Gilan | Home Built | 34 | August 13th 04 03:20 PM |
Sport Pilot Final | Gilan | Piloting | 19 | July 22nd 04 04:38 PM |