Uncontrolled ROW

[Rowdy Burns]

"straight in downwind"

One either joins downwind, or mid-downwind.

The former implies straight-in. The latter implies via overhead with
a 90 degree turn.

Right on. Of course one apply that logic to say"one either joins downwind, or straight-in downwind" where the former implies midfield and the latter implies the other option (without a 90 degree turn). I like your distinction since, as someone (credit here) else pointed out, it gets confused with the straight in final. Also, no one ever calls "straight-in base".

[Beefitarian]

As in most things these days, the English language is so "bastardized" that anyone with any sense at all has a hard time understanding what the hell you kids really mean.

The Old Curmudgeon
Barney with thick skin

What do you mean Barney?

Yo, what up dog? I be flyin here and you best get yo busted ass out the way, fo I get all in the circuit wit y'll. Know what I'm sayin?

[Old Dog Flying]

Beef: I'm not certain what if any, your point is, but CS was quite right a few posts back and no I don't expect people to get out of my way. I follow long standing procedures that have kept me safe for a very long time.

Many years ago I was briefing a student at a small prairie airfield about the use of check-lists when one of the local heroes started berating me for wasting the students time with BS check-lists.

Our hero walked out to his Aztec, fired it up and blasted into the sky. The door popped open and he spent the entire circuit trying to save his paperwork and sundry other junk from flying out the door. Naturely when he flaired for the landing the noise factor became quite intense when the props started chewing up the runway..no gear and no brains.

Bad attitudes make for bad decisions...and bad phraseology makes for confusion in the circuit.

And the hero in the above..well he took three of his friends with him to a very nasty ending..RIP

[Beefitarian]

I agree with you and was kidding around about how the English language is evolving. There's places where it maybe should not in my opinion. Someone on here was giving me a hard time about using "niner" to avoid confusion.

The Colonel is a pretty big proponent of "less is more on the radio" I agree but I think it's important to make sure everyone knows where others are if near by and what their intentions are.

I suppose to a degree we all have to use whatever everyone else is to keep communications viable.

Sorry if it read like I was giving you a hard time with the ebonics.

[Old Dog Flying]

[quote="Beefitarian"]

I suppose to a degree we all have to use whatever everyone else is to keep communications viable.

quote]

That is exactly why the use of "Standard" phraseology was established many years ago but unfortunately the great unwashed hoard of semi-literate newbies just don't understand that it is they who must conform to the standard.
no offence taken..thick skinned old fart

Barney

[Beefitarian]

I read that part of the accident in Cranbrook years ago was due to someone on the radio telling the pilot the plough was "clearing the runway."

Someone on here claimed that was a hoax but even if it is it makes the point that we need to choose our words carefully when communicating on the Radio.

[HavaJava]

The following reference to straight-in downwind comes from the AIM (I am fully aware that the AIM is not the CARs so don't give me that lecture). I never imagined that someone could confuse "straight-in downwind" with "straight-in final", but I'm willing to keep an open mind with this. As you can also see, the 45 degree downwind entry is an option, so I still think specifying "joining straight-in downwind" is a good idea.

(vi) Aerodromes within an MF area when airport advisory information is available: Aircraft may join the circuit pattern straight-in or at 45° to the downwind leg or straight-in to the base or final legs (Figure 4.1). Pilots should be alert for other VFR traffic entering the circuit at these positions and for IFR straight-in or circling approaches.

[767]

The "straight-in-downwind" is BULL!

No it isnt. It is a "precise" position report.

I also spent nearly 50 of those fun years in ATC

We are not talking about ATC here, we are talking about ROW at uncontrolled airport (radio use). But thanks for sharing that, I hope you had fun doing ATC.

maybe dead wrong some day with that attitude.

I still have not figured out what your issue is. It just seems pointless to continue responding to this topic. I just think it is best to agree to disagree with each other.

(vi) Aerodromes within an MF area when airport advisory information is available: Aircraft may join the circuit pattern straight-in or at 45° to the downwind leg or straight-in to the base or final legs (Figure 4.1). Pilots should be alert for other VFR traffic entering the circuit at these positions and for IFR straight-in or circling approaches.

Thanks HJ.

[Cat Driver]

Old Dog Flying:

You are " barking up the wrong tree " so to speak when you try and discuss how to fly and how to teach to some of the " newer " generation of pilots here.

Maybe you have failed to read some of the ideas a few of these people have about how to teach flying.

Seems I recall one of these people who are trashing you teaches students to go to full power at the stall break before reducing the angle of attack.......

.......so maybe " straight in " can be a description we would use after they impacted the ground in the spin that developed at the point of stall.

....Just sayin.....

......if my recall is wrong I apologize now so I don't have to bother later.

[trey kule]

You are right ...Princes of the patches know how to do it all better....some of them even offer mobile ATC services when they are flying..
the procedure in the AIM is just that...a procedure, and I did not see anything in your quote with regard to the radio call.....a bit of a leap in your thinking, but that is what causes problems in communication.
Personally, I think CS got it right..superfolous add on to a call..not even a bit more precise than announcing joining downwind, and could easily be confused with a straight in approach (to final).
The problem is, and has always been, is some smarter-than-everyone else person at some little airport thinks up a great idea, and starts using it.
Pretty soon every one at the local airport is using the same expressions..Reminds me of the guy who had a car accident turning into his field...and explained..."well everyone knows I turn here". People will defend a dumb idea all day long.It is why we do not use certain phrases like "take-off power" anymore. They can have two meanings and while the local guys may all be doing it and understand it, all it takes is someone from outside their little world to confuse things.

There is aviation outside the little world of many of the local fields, and that is not a slam, but recognition of the incestious nature of small fields, company cultures, and oh so smart, new instructors....even if daddy flies for AC.

I hope some of the TC folks are reading this thread, and will take the time to clarify it...

BTW..Cat... .I think that instructor comment about powering through a stall without lowering the angle of attack (because, I believe, he said it was because he was flying a twin) will be remembered by many of us old guys for many years to come...Hope his students dont become like the AF guys.

[FlyGy]

So, to sum it all up...no one knows WTF to do at an uncontrolled airport because some pilots will only follow the CARs because they are the law but won't bother to concern themselves with the AIM because it is only a recommended practise and the AIM is contradictory to the CARs, therefore causing a breach in the law. Yet other pilots consider the AIM to be gospel and follow it to the letter because they believe it is important to follow recommended practises and that all other pilots should to.

[trey kule]

I am not sure I agree with your summation. The AIM sums it up pretty well, but simply does not address the communication part.
The issue is we have some people who have decided that they are much smarter than the rest of us, and thus are enhancing their communication skills, in the belief, I suppose,that we all know what they are doing. It is a really bad assumption.

The entry and departure from an uncontrolled airpost is not rocket surgery. It is when someone decides that they have a better idea than the standard way, and jump into the fray with their own phraseology,or, as was mentioned on other threads,,,,,give instructions to other pilots...that a problem exists.

Us old fogeys, with the wisdom of having seen misunderstandings in communications shy away from any phraseology that could cause confusion...and "I am straight in ....downwind." is one of them. I think it was a mistake for the people who wrote up the AIM to use that term to describe the entry, but common sense should prevail and we should not be using it to announce our postion as such. Particualrily because outside the FTＵ world you might just hear someone approaching "straight in for .."

I am quite glad that I do not have to deal in these situations anymore. Looking out and thinking will avoid more accidents than all the fancified radio procedures combined.

[Colonel Sanders]

I never pre-announce what I am going to do next.

For example, I see people make this call all the time:

"Sumspot Traffic, <A/c type & reg> backtrack 27 for takeoff"

There are so many things wrong with that call.

First, don't use "for" or "to" in a radio call if you can
possibly avoid it.

Second, the gratuitous pre-announcement of what
you are going to do in a while (takeoff) wastes bandwidth
and can actually misinform people badly, who can easily
hear this:

"Sumspot Traffic, <A/c type & reg> (mumble) 27 (garble) takeoff"

Congratulations. Because you are in love with the sound
of your own voice, and love to pre-announce what you
are going to do next, you have now wasted bandwidth
and potentially mis-informed people.

[trey kule]

602.100 The pilot-in-command of a VFR or IFR aircraft that is departing from an uncontrolled aerodrome that lies within an MF area shall

(a) before moving onto the take-off surface, report the pilot-in-command's departure procedure intentions;

Seems to me, backtracking would fall under that clause..you are, after all, taking up runway and going in the opposite direction of your intended take off.

[Colonel Sanders]

That reg is for MF (FSS) not ATF (unicom)

There is no legal requirement to even have a
Comm radio at an uncontrolled airport.

I have flown NORDO many many times at
Uncontrolled airports over the decades and
Will continue to do so.

[Shiny Side Up]

We wouldn't need to have this quibbling over "the rules" if more people just followed that hedley guy's Guideline #1 for aviation.

Hedley's Aviation Guideline:

1) Don't piss anybody off

[767]

There is no legal requirement to even have a
Comm radio at an uncontrolled airport.

That is correct. I remember telling that to someone because they were pissed at me because I didnt bother announcing that I was turning final. The reason I didnt call is becuase the frequency was too busy, and the situation was so bad that everyone was stepping on each other. It seemed like they were just talking and not listening. I just focused on the traffic sequence in the circuit, and landed when it was my turn.

"Sumspot Traffic, <A/c type & reg> backtrack 27 for takeoff"

There are so many things wrong with that call.

I dont see what the issue is.

We wouldn't need to have this quibbling over "the rules" if more people just followed that hedley guy's Guideline #1 for aviation.

Hedley's Aviation Guideline:

1) Don't piss anybody off

Well sometimes people in this industry get pissed off for no reason, and that is their personal problem(s) that no one else can control. Other than that, i agree, dont piss anyone off.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What I tell my students:

Fly the airplane first talk on the radio second Always.

-Talk less and listen more.

-When you change frequencies wait for a few seconds before you transmit so you don,t walk over somebody else.

-Engage brain before you engage the radio push to talk.

- Spreak in normal tone of voice at a natural rate

- I will tell what you should be saying and correcting you when you make mistakes. The radio calls will be in accordance with CARs requirements and what is "industry standard" that is what the majoirity of professional pilots do.

[767]

What I tell my students:
Fly the airplane first talk on the radio second Always.
Talk less and listen more.
When you change frequencies wait for a few seconds before you transmit so you don,t walk over somebody else.
Engage brain before you engage the radio push to talk.
Spreak in normal tone of voice at a natural rate
I will tell what you should be saying and correcting you when you make mistakes.

Are you sure you are not stealing my ideas? just kidding, I like your post. Well said.

[Shiny Side Up]

Well sometimes people in this industry get pissed off for no reason, and that is their personal problem(s) that no one else can control.

Unless maybe its your wife in the other airplanes (in which case they're probably pissed off at you for an unrelated reason that you've long forgotten or had previously incorrectly assumed to be trivial) People don't just randomly get pissed off. That being said, they don't always get pissed off at you for logical reasons, but they do usually get pissed off at you for some reason. Pilots should keep in mind that CAR 602.01 is open to some pretty wide interpretation and you might find someone who's got a lot of time on their hands, holds a grudge and has a different interpretation than you do. I seem to remember a former poster of this forum who had a long go around with the tribunal over his interpretation. I don't think he learned from it, but that doesn't mean that everyone else can't.