No more "Left Downwind"?

Jay Honeck wrote:
We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
(who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")

There is no IQ test required to be an FAA presenter.

john smith wrote:
How is right or left traffic depicted on a Sectional Chart?

This is why BFRs are required every 2 years.

-Robert

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
redundant, ........

What do you guys think?

What you have to realize is that this sort of thing is not at all about air
safety or the expedited movement of aircraft. In this world of lifetime
bureaucrats and computerized management reports, this is about some
mid-level 'crat being able to generate a spreadsheet report showing that his
proposal reduced transmitted verbiage by an average of 0.042% last quarter,
0.002% above goal!!! Excellent job, guys! Keep up the good work!!!!

Jay Honeck wrote:
We attended a safety seminar on Tuesday during which the FAA presenter
(who was otherwise outstanding) went over a list of unapproved radio
calls. (Number one being, of course, the despised and now-specifically
prohibited "Any other traffic please advise...")


I must have missed something, not flying for awhile. How was "Any other
traffic please advise" specifically prohibited?

Jay Honeck wrote:
Mary and I (and several other pilots) kept quiet during the
presentation, but strongly disagree with him on this topic. IMHO,
saying "left downwind" is clear, concise, and -- most importantly --
clarifies which side of the airport you're on. To assume that everyone
knows whether the pattern is left (or right) is, in my experience,
naive.

What do you guys think?


I'm with you. In fact, I start and finish my transmission with the airport name
just because I know how *I* am with radio transmissions. I tend to float along
not paying real attention and then it's "where did he say he was?". So I'll
transmit "Rock Hill traffic, Cessna 32Q on left downwind for runway zero two,
Rock Hill." It only takes a split second more but I figure it helps, not hurts.

When it domes right down to it, the FAA isn't likely to run into anyone sitting
in his office, but we might in the traffic pattern. The people who dreamed up
your FAA man's premise have too much free time on their hands and not enough
experience actually flying in the system.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Jay Honeck wrote:

...
In his opinion (and, apparently, the FAA's), saying "left downwind" is
redundant, since everyone should know that the pattern is left (or
right, if appropriate) hand traffic.
...
What do you guys think?

I remember having had a somewhat related discussion with some
CAP folks concerning operations in non-controlled airfields. Now
reading your piece, I went back to the regs just to make sure I
was not imagining things. The one that talks about operating on
or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace, 14 CFR 91.126,
specifies, in its subparagraph (b) the direction of turns. Ok, it
seems clear enough, one should turn left unless indicated otherwise.

However, the subparagraph (a), as a general introduction, has
the following magic words in it: "Unless otherwise authorized
or required..." -- what does it mean exactly? Notice that
unlike other parts of this chapter which use a similar wording,
it does NOT say 'unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC',
i.e., it does not mention ATC until subparagraph (d).

My interpretation -- which might very well be mistaken, please
correct me -- is that if someone has a compelling reason to do
something different, whatever it might be, it is his or her call.
Am I completely off here? seriously?

And that's in a perfect world, where everybody knows exactly where
they are, and announce it accurately, which is, as anyone who
has operated in a reasonably busy uncontrolled airfield would know,
a bit over optimistic. And you get people who take off in one
direction and land in another, folks coming in from straight-in
many miles away on an IFR approach, etc. pretty much anything goes,
it can be a lot of fun actually.

I other words, I agree with you that every bit helps and that
announcing what you are doing is the sane thing to do (when possible),
even by adding a bit of redundency just to be sure; besides I can't
see how skipping *one* monosyllabic word is not going to reduce the
radio chatter by much.

--Sylvain

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:02:12 GMT, Jose
wrote:

The real problem isn't "with you" or "left" or "looking",
but rather the windbags that take two minutes to say anything because
they haven't a clue.

"Jeff--is that you?"

"Yeah, it's me."

"How ya doing?"

"Okay, I guess."

(Heard on a holiday weekend.)

Jay Honeck wrote:


What do you guys think?

I agree with the FAA. I've never added the "left" or "right" into
my radio calls *unless* I am entering the pattern in a non-standard
way. It really is redundant as according to FARs you are supposed to
be familiar with runway information at the destination airport in
advance of your flight.

cjcampbell wrote:

I must have missed something, not flying for awhile. How was "Any other
traffic please advise" specifically prohibited?

Specifically prohibited might be a tad strong, but the 2007 AIM directly
singles out this phrase and recommends against its use.

--
Peter

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:56:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

I think he's right when he says it's redundant and wrong when he says it's
incorrect.

When I first read that, I was in agreement, but considering that a
pilot has the option to enter the pattern at his discretion from any
point, perhaps omitting the word 'left' might cause others to check
both downwind legs thus overcoming any ambiguity possibly introduced
by those pilots who don't know their right from their left.

On the other hand, if the FAA presenter was a true spokesman for
official policy, perhaps his admission, that the FAA considers the
congestion on the shared CFAF frequencies a safety concern, is
evidence that the FAA is powerless to petition the FCC for the
additional CTAF frequencies necessary to meet its federal mandate* to
insure safe skies.

*(Federal Aviation Act of 1958: "to ensure air safety." 49 U.S.C. §
44701(c): requiring Administrator to regulate "in a way that best
tends to reduce or eliminate the possibility or recurrence of
accidents in air transportation")