Useless radio transmissions

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.

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...

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?

With a repost to r.a.student.

"BPH" == Bela P Havasreti writes:

BPH CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students this
BPH stuff?!!! 8^)

BPH On 122.75: Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet
BPH over some non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the
BPH broadcaster does so in broken english. Even more annoying
BPH when the broadcaster does so every 5 minutes!

BPH On CTAF: Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking
BPH spot to "the active runway" at an airport that's the size of
BPH an ex-WW2 air base. Who cares?

BPH On CTAF: Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You
BPH might think anyone who is waiting to take off can *see* when
BPH you're clear. The only exception I can think of is a
BPH (severely) crowned runway where the other end can't be seen
BPH from the departure end.

BPH I'll think of some more later.... grins

BPH Bela P. Havasreti

And also please stop saying "active runway". Is there such as thing as
"inactive runway"? It might be more useful to say "clear of runway XX",
that way someone listening might know which runway is being used.

However, "clear of XX" is not entirely useless. At some airports you
cannot see the other end of the runway. If you are departing behind a
landing traffic, it would be helpful to know when the other airplane
has left the runway so that you can start the takeoff roll.



Bob Fry wrote:
With a repost to r.a.student.

"BPH" == Bela P Havasreti writes:

BPH CFIs, will you please, PLEASE stop teaching students this
BPH stuff?!!! 8^)

BPH On 122.75: Making 30+ second long position reports, 4500 feet
BPH over some non-descript / podunk town. More annoying when the
BPH broadcaster does so in broken english. Even more annoying
BPH when the broadcaster does so every 5 minutes!

BPH On CTAF: Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking
BPH spot to "the active runway" at an airport that's the size of
BPH an ex-WW2 air base. Who cares?

BPH On CTAF: Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You
BPH might think anyone who is waiting to take off can *see* when
BPH you're clear. The only exception I can think of is a
BPH (severely) crowned runway where the other end can't be seen
BPH from the departure end.

BPH I'll think of some more later.... grins

BPH Bela P. Havasreti

Bob Fry wrote in
:

I'd have to respectfully disagree with your assessment on some of the
calls.

BPH On CTAF: Announcing that you're taxiing from your parking
BPH spot to "the active runway" at an airport that's the size of
BPH an ex-WW2 air base. Who cares?

When I am ready to taxi, I say, Madison, 1943L ready to taxi, request
advisories, Madison. This call is two fold. If somebody in the MBO is
monitoring, they can give me a heads up that there is reported and when
winds are calm, tell me what runway was last used. Helps me know my
radio is working AND I work with the pattern. Plane could have called in
before I flipped my avionics switch. Soooo. I do care.....

BPH On CTAF: Announcing that you're "Clear of the active". You
BPH might think anyone who is waiting to take off can *see* when
BPH you're clear. The only exception I can think of is a
BPH (severely) crowned runway where the other end can't be seen
BPH from the departure end.

Low wing planes are very hard to see on extra long runways, especially
dark ones. So, if I am at the end of 17 and a plane lands, I fully
appreciate when they report they are cleared the active. I then don't
have to wait until I get a visual on them taxiing halfway up a 1 mile
taxiway for me to take off. And as you stated, many runways I land on
are rather hilly, and seeing a plane in the valley of a runway or the
other end can be a rather difficult challenge.

As far as cleared the active, if you are paying attention when you
approach the airport, you know the active runway.

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. After landing, I try to say, Natchez, 43L, cleared the
active 25, Natchez (or whatever runway it may be) so folks around me can
know what runway I am indeed clearing.

A few extra words for a bunch of safety sure is worth it to me.

Allen

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.

A pilot could very well choose to land or depart on the perpendicular
runway to other traffic in the pattern and not be violating anything except
the opinions of those who incorrectly believe there is only one active
runway at an uncontrolled airport.

Stick to "Podunk traffic, Cessna 123 clear of runway X," and you would be
omitting the erroneous words such as "active" that have, at best, an
ambiguous meaning at an uncontrolled airport.

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

--
Peter

"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 CTAF:
Announcing that you're "Clear of the active".

At our airport (which has only partial taxiways, and therefore often
requires back-taxiing on other runways after landing) I always announce
"Clear of all runways, Iowa City".

That pretty much tells the tale to all concerned.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"