non-towered airport question

What's the general viewpoint here?

A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
long.

Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
Later another plane joined him.

There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
the other. I'm still getting used to it.

When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
horizon.

Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
wasn't what I preferred initially.

I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
say you didn't"

However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
elsewhere.

Cheers,
Sydney

However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
elsewhere.

With three (well, okay, six) runways to choose from here at IOW, I always
try to follow the "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" rule of runway
selection, and I appreciate it when everyone else does, too.

This isn't a perfect strategy either, of course. For example, the wind can
change, and suddenly everyone is stuck using the "wrong" runway, simply due
to inertia. (This can make for some interesting plane watching -- not
everyone's cross-wind technique is as sharp as it could be! :-)

But having everyone on the same runway makes the pattern work the
smoothest -- which, ultimately, helps keep us all safe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:UwIMb.37328$na.29723@attbi_s04...

But having everyone on the same runway makes the pattern work the
smoothest -- which, ultimately, helps keep us all safe.

Hi Jay,

I appreciate your POV, but actually I disagree. My target
airspeed on final is 10 knots faster than well-flown brand
P or C and I usually want to fly a tighter pattern, too. So
it's actually smoothest for me to "do my own thing". It's
actually easier to space properly with orthogonal separation.
There oughta be a little web-based simulator program to show
this -- can one add two airplanes to Tim's VOR simulator?

Safer, I think that very much depends upon the circumstances.
I think it's largely a feeling of familiarity "everybody going
in the same rectangle" which makes people feel safer, but I'm
not sure it really is. I think people relax too much with
radio calls and don't always really keep a proper look-out.
I've certainly broken out or broken off or done a sudden
dive maneuver when someone who just called "entering downwind"
showed up on base or the like. Just my opinion.

OTOH I don't want to P/O people just for grins, so if there's
a tendency to *perceive* it as safer, that's relevant.

Cheers,
Sydney

In article , Snowbird
wrote:

Sydney, tell us what airport it is so we can look at an airport diagram.

EDR wrote in message ...
In article , Snowbird
wrote:
Sydney, tell us what airport it is so we can look at an airport diagram.

Sorry, didn't see this before

SET

Don't know if thihs link will work:
http://www.aopa.org/members/airports...identifier=SET

Rwy 36, 27, both left traffic

To someone who emailed me: my assessment of the conflicts w/
rwy 27 and 36 both in active use is 1) if planes are taking off/
climbing out at the same time, and life sucks 2) crosswind for
27 and a section of downwind for 36 3) potentially someone entering
downwind for 27 on a 45, with downwind for 36.

Cheers,
Sydney

No holds barred at an uncontrolled airport...but we all have to get along
together. If the preponderance of the traffic was using the short, my
feeling is that you should have joined them or gone somewhere else. Student
pilots (and I have to assume one or two in the pattern) have enough to be
concerned about without someone doing the unexpected. This applies to the
CFI flying with the student as well....although this is a learning
experience: "Look at that guy! What he is doing is legal, but not smart.
Keep your eyes on a swivel and expect the unexpected!!!"

Bob Gardner
"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
What's the general viewpoint here?

A non-towered airport near us has two runways, shaped
like an "L". Totally flat, no obstructions to vision--
airplane at the departure end for one can see airplanes
at the other. Left traffic both, so the downwind for the
short runway crosses the longer runway at midfield.
The possible conflict points are simultaneous T/O,
or crosswind for the short runway/downwind for the
long.

Today at that airport, one aircraft was in the pattern for
the shorter runway, which the wind favored. I wanted to use
the longer runway for various reasons, so exercising a sharp
look-out and making my radio calls, I proceded to do so.
Later another plane joined him.

There were no conflicts AFAIK. Everyone was doing a good job
making transmissions and keeping track of each other.
It was a good exercise for me since our new home airport has
a similar setup with both runways frequently in use -- and the
added complication of right traffic in one direction, left in
the other. I'm still getting used to it.

When a fourth aircraft called in, I decided the spatial
relationships were getting complicated and taxied over to
the short run way, did one short field landing which my instructor
would have liked and I didn't (power on), and headed for the
horizon.

Question is: how would most pilots here feel about this?
Would you feel I should have just joined with traffic
for the shorter runway? In terms of my plane's capabilities
and mine, it's plenty of runway, no reason why not. It just
wasn't what I preferred initially.

I used to be based at that airport and it wasn't uncommon, if
I was in the pattern for the short runway, to have other planes
land on the long. It never bothered me except when someone
came straight-in and obviously had no idea where the rest of
the traffic was. But one of the planes in the pattern seemed
to indicate, um, let's say displeasure with me. That doesn't
concern me -- people have to say whatever they feel improves
safety and presents them in a professional light, *hee* *hee*,
and I kept my rule of "don't argue on freq. just don't and
say you didn't"

However I figure I should ask for a sanity-check on whether
what's SOP at home is regarded as inappropriate or rude
elsewhere.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:KAIMb.37603$8H.86299@attbi_s03...
No holds barred at an uncontrolled airport...but we all have to get along
together. If the preponderance of the traffic was using the short, my
feeling is that you should have joined them or gone somewhere else. Student
pilots (and I have to assume one or two in the pattern) have enough to be
concerned about without someone doing the unexpected. This applies to the
CFI flying with the student as well....although this is a learning
experience: "Look at that guy! What he is doing is legal, but not smart.
Keep your eyes on a swivel and expect the unexpected!!!"

Well, I dunno what you consider "preponderance". When I arrived,
there was one chap who announced for the other runway, no other
observed traffic. He said "full stop", which led me to think he
was landing and tieing down and it didn't make much difference. I
realized after he took off again, he was just trying to differentiate
from "touch and go", and I'm not sure what he could have said which
would have made his intention to land and taxi back for continued
pattern work clear. "full stop, continued pattern work" might have
done it.

A second airplane which showed up said the same thing "full stop"
which again, led me to think he was landing and taxiing to his hangar,
not planning to taxi back and do pattern work.

After it was clear what they were doing and a third airplane called
in, I called them a preponderance and I did join them.

Frankly Bob and meaning no disrespect, if you're telling your
students this is unexpected or "not smart", you might be doing
them a disservice IMHO. I can remember my initial CFIs saying
similar things, and it led me to have a little "attitide" about
what people "ought" to do which later, more experienced CFIs
squelched, pointing out there are sometimes good reasons.

I used to be based at that airport, and twins regularly use the
longer runway while singles are on the shorter runway, because it
gives them more options -- I'm not a multi pilot, but I read about
"balanced runway length" and yadda yadda, so I assume most multi
pilots think it's smart to use a 3500 ft runway instead of a 2000
ft runway when it's available.

OTOH, if there's a kicking crosswind, is it smart for a Piper
pilot to just join the pattern with the long runway at a wind
level maybe he's not comfortable with, or to space himself
properly and land into the wind? I think one could argue the
latter as "smart".

At my home airport, many of the antiques and taildraggers prefer
to land on grass. So they'll use the grass runway even if the
wind favors the paved or is "6 of one half a dozen of the other".
I'm not a taildragger pilot either, but I assume some taildragger
pilots would think it's smart to land on grass if there's an Xwind
either way and the pilot/plane is more comfortable on grass.

In any case, it's common enough that I think it has to be considered
"expected".

Sydney

Last things first...I prefer grass to paved in taildraggers as well. Ref the
into-the-wind vs crosswind question, the answer is obviously to land into
the wind...I would go so far as to say "Piper 12345 on final, runway 21,
into the wind" just to get the message across.

Balanced field length applies to jets.

I guess I read more into your original post than was there...I had this
mental picture of a bunch of folks using one runway while you used another,
which is your right to do. I still see it as a learning situation for any
students in the pattern, because they are just learning what a pattern is,
how it relates to the runway in use, etc and are not far enough into the
game to understand why doing something else might be preferable.

Bob

"Snowbird" wrote in message
m...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:KAIMb.37603$8H.86299@attbi_s03...
No holds barred at an uncontrolled airport...but we all have to get
along
together. If the preponderance of the traffic was using the short, my
feeling is that you should have joined them or gone somewhere else.
Student
pilots (and I have to assume one or two in the pattern) have enough to
be
concerned about without someone doing the unexpected. This applies to
the
CFI flying with the student as well....although this is a learning
experience: "Look at that guy! What he is doing is legal, but not smart.
Keep your eyes on a swivel and expect the unexpected!!!"

Well, I dunno what you consider "preponderance". When I arrived,
there was one chap who announced for the other runway, no other
observed traffic. He said "full stop", which led me to think he
was landing and tieing down and it didn't make much difference. I
realized after he took off again, he was just trying to differentiate
from "touch and go", and I'm not sure what he could have said which
would have made his intention to land and taxi back for continued
pattern work clear. "full stop, continued pattern work" might have
done it.

A second airplane which showed up said the same thing "full stop"
which again, led me to think he was landing and taxiing to his hangar,
not planning to taxi back and do pattern work.

After it was clear what they were doing and a third airplane called
in, I called them a preponderance and I did join them.

Frankly Bob and meaning no disrespect, if you're telling your
students this is unexpected or "not smart", you might be doing
them a disservice IMHO. I can remember my initial CFIs saying
similar things, and it led me to have a little "attitide" about
what people "ought" to do which later, more experienced CFIs
squelched, pointing out there are sometimes good reasons.

I used to be based at that airport, and twins regularly use the
longer runway while singles are on the shorter runway, because it
gives them more options -- I'm not a multi pilot, but I read about
"balanced runway length" and yadda yadda, so I assume most multi
pilots think it's smart to use a 3500 ft runway instead of a 2000
ft runway when it's available.

OTOH, if there's a kicking crosswind, is it smart for a Piper
pilot to just join the pattern with the long runway at a wind
level maybe he's not comfortable with, or to space himself
properly and land into the wind? I think one could argue the
latter as "smart".

At my home airport, many of the antiques and taildraggers prefer
to land on grass. So they'll use the grass runway even if the
wind favors the paved or is "6 of one half a dozen of the other".
I'm not a taildragger pilot either, but I assume some taildragger
pilots would think it's smart to land on grass if there's an Xwind
either way and the pilot/plane is more comfortable on grass.

In any case, it's common enough that I think it has to be considered
"expected".

Sydney

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:GyVMb.43941$5V2.61806@attbi_s53...
I guess I read more into your original post than was there...I had this
mental picture of a bunch of folks using one runway while you used another,
which is your right to do.

Well, that is what wound up happening, but it wasn't so clear-cut
as several planes established in the pattern when I arrived.

It was very clear that the wind favored the runway they were using.

I still see it as a learning situation for any
students in the pattern

That's definately true, and I probably wasn't clear enough
about my point so let me try to restate it in a better way.

As a student, I had instructors say similar things to me along the
lines of "this isn't what a pilot ought to do, it isn't smart, but
it will happen so you need to watch for it". And I was very nervous
when I was in the pattern and other aircraft arrived and used a
different runway.

As a private pilot, one of the instructors I worked with
drew the traffic patterns for the two runways and we worked
our way around them with what altitude a plane would likely
be at at each point, and identified where the conflict
points were. It quickly became clear that barring unusual
behavior like a chap turning at 200 AGL, there are only a
couple of conflict points and they can readily be avoided
with a bit of care. So after that it was a matter of "OK,
when this happens, this is what I watch for and this is how
I should time it" and it was much less stressful to me.

I'm still less comfortable with our new home airport because
both runways have right traffic in one direction and left in
the other, and there are more potential conflict points so
it's not as clear to me how to time it.

That's what I meant when I said perhaps it's doing the students
a disservice to tell them it's unexpected and not smart. I'm
know you're right that they need to focus on the basics of what
is a pattern and what they should be doing when, but I think
it's a common enough situation that they should just be prepared
to watch for it and meet it.

Best,
Sydney

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:KAIMb.37603$8H.86299@attbi_s03...
No holds barred at an uncontrolled airport...but we all have to get along
together. If the preponderance of the traffic was using the short, my
feeling is that you should have joined them or gone somewhere else. Student
pilots (and I have to assume one or two in the pattern) have enough to be
concerned about without someone doing the unexpected. This applies to the
CFI flying with the student as well....although this is a learning
experience: "Look at that guy! What he is doing is legal, but not smart.
Keep your eyes on a swivel and expect the unexpected!!!"


I would agree that if there were a lot of traffic, you should go
somewhere else. Sydney's post describes what I would consider to be a
very light load. Two aircraft doing full-stop, taxi backs. When it
got up to three, she went with the flow.

When I was a student, I actually was exposed to using a different
runway with light traffic on another. Most commonly to do crosswind
landing practice. I was also taught not to go with the flow if the
flow is wrong (i.e. strong wind favoring different runway).

I visit quite a few not-towered airports where more than one runway
is used simultaneously. 99 times out of 100, no one has a problem as
long as you announce and coordinate. Every now and then, some pattern
cop will object to someone using a different runway, but as long as
there is no conflict, they're generally ignored.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)