Useless radio transmissions

"Peter R." wrote in
:

A Lieberma wrote:

You must not deal with uncontrolled airports that potentially have
two active runways, such as intersecting runways, so yes, you can
have an inactive runway.

You had me agreeing with you right up to this point. Both runways
could very well be handling arriving and departing traffic, hence the
concept that there is no one, true active runway at an uncontrolled
airport.

Heck Peter,

Just reading my own paragraph made me disagree with myself :-)

Needless to say, you are right, at an uncontrolled airport, both runways
should be treated as active since somebody just may be boning up on
their crosswind techniques.

Oh, and where did the rest of your name go in your newsreader moniker?


on the inactive runway :-)

Allen

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:50:54 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
wrote:
However, if you live on the same planet we do
(and there's 6+ fields within 50 square nautical
miles that use the same CTAF frequency), it's a
waste of broadcast bandwidth.

Sounds like you might be complaining about the symptoms, not the
actual problem (i.e. multiple airports on the same frequency)... I
always wondered why the FAA does this... There seems to be enough
frequencies that they could spread them out a bit...

Sounds like you might be complaining about the symptoms, not the
actual problem (i.e. multiple airports on the same frequency)... I
always wondered why the FAA does this... There seems to be enough
frequencies that they could spread them out a bit...

I'm not sure which way I lean on this. Flying low through an area with
several nontowered airports, it is useful to self-announce to all of
them as I go by, and since they can be fairly close together, I may be
relevant traffic for two or three at a time. A common frequency is
useful for this. It does have its drawbacks though, as you can see.

How far out do you (as a pilot in the pattern of a nontowered airport)
want to hear from a low transiting pilot?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Grumman-581 wrote:
Sounds like you might be complaining about the symptoms, not the
actual problem (i.e. multiple airports on the same frequency)... I
always wondered why the FAA does this... There seems to be enough
frequencies that they could spread them out a bit...

I really agree, but it's not the FAA who nominally does the
"spreading." Unicom base stations apply to the FCC for the freq
and most applied decades ago. FAA would have to adopt a rule
(FAR), which states they now at its whim can order unicom base
stations to apply for a new freq other than their present 122.8.
Some fraction of airport operators then have the legal right
(the Administrative Procedures Act, plus an Executive Order which
gives the Office of Management and Budget the authority to weigh
in as to the need for new rules on affected citizens, like unicom
operators) to comment and oppose, stating (even if blowing smoke
in many cases) that it will cost them too much, and then FAA must
under law justify the cost-benefit to finally adopt the new rule.

This legal reality is a door which can swing both ways. It tends
also to prevent FAA from from just thinking about imposing rules
on us pilots or owners in other seeming nuisance areas which will
cost us too much re a cost-benefit analysis.

Fred F.

TxSrv wrote:
Some fraction of airport operators then have the legal right
[...] to comment and oppose, stating (even if blowing smoke
in many cases) that it will cost them too much

How could it cost *any* money to switch frequencies. Are people really
still using radios where changing the freq requires anything more than
turning a knob?

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:27:02 GMT, Jose
wrote:
How far out do you (as a pilot in the pattern of a nontowered airport)
want to hear from a low transiting pilot?

The airport that I hear from the most while in the pattern at my home
airport is about 13 nm away... They seem to have quite a bit more
activity than our airport and quite often, it's difficult to get a
word in edgewise when they have a few students or whatever in the
pattern... There are airports closer than this one and they have
different frequencies, so I have to assume that *someone* thought that
this airport was far enough away that the transmissions would not
intefere with each other... They were wrong, of course...

If they're not within 5 nm of the airport or heading into the airport,
I probably don't need to hear from them... Ideally, when I'm flying, I
like to stay 5 nm away from any airport (or more depending upon the
actual airspace restrictions)... I mapped this out for the Houston
area once and that left with relatively few places to fly so I
abandoned this notion rather quickly...

Roy Smith wrote:

How could it cost *any* money to switch frequencies. Are people really
still using radios where changing the freq requires anything more than
turning a knob?

It's not our radios, but whatever the unicom base station
operator has. Perhaps it's just a new crystal, but an old
transceiver by a company out of business. Who ya' gonna call?

Fred F.

In article ,
TxSrv wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:

How could it cost *any* money to switch frequencies. Are people really
still using radios where changing the freq requires anything more than
turning a knob?

It's not our radios, but whatever the unicom base station
operator has. Perhaps it's just a new crystal, but an old
transceiver by a company out of business. Who ya' gonna call?

Fred F.

Are there really people running crystal controlled base stations? I
thought crystal sets went out of style 30 years ago.

Roy Smith wrote:

Are there really people running crystal controlled base stations? I
thought crystal sets went out of style 30 years ago.

Most of my aircraft's electronics went out of style 30 yrs ago,
but still work very well. If a single-frequency base station
still works, how would a small FBO making little or no money
react to gov't ordering they make it put another frequency? Same
as we would, if FAA said an item in our avionics stack is no
longer acceptable.

Fred F.

How is "area traffic" different from "traffic"?????#$%

We have a local area that I fly into that makes sense to use "area" traffic.
There are 3 airfields within a 3 mile line East to West. The middle one is
a public use grass strip (Eagleville) and the two others (one is named T-Top
and each are ~1 mile away from the center one) are private, but often used
strips.

They all show 122.8 as their CTAF (if it's published). A wide pattern at
any of the fields will intersect with the other, so most people use the
public use name + area "Eagleville area traffic, C12345 entering left
downwind runway 19, T-Top"