WANT TO JOIN THE SHORT WING PIPER CLUB?


Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Mayhem on a Saturday morning

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roseville, CA
    Posts
    442

    Default Mayhem on a Saturday morning

    Decided to go shoot some touch and go's this morning since there was no wind and the sky was blue. Several airplanes were in the pattern and we're all playing nice and getting along using runway 15. I leave the pattern for a bit to play with a little air work and as I'm coming back I hear some corporate pilot in a Citation call 10 mile straight in for 33. The pattern at the moment was empty and so the next couple airplanes to show up announce intentions to use 33. No problem, I follow another airplane and join the 33 downwind. While on the downwind, I hear a Cessna announce he's on the GPS approach to 15. Both of us in the pattern restate that we're landing 33 and three RV's on the ground announce their intention to depart as a flight of three off 33 and one of them calls to the Cessna and tells him that 33 is the active. The Cessna seems to ignore this and makes another radio call for 15. The airplane ahead lands, I land, and as I pull off the runway I can see the Cessna on short final for 15. As soon as I clear, the RV's announce their departure on 33 and take the runway, much to the irritation of the Cessna who now sounds surprised that there is anyone else in the pattern. He asks the RV's if they can wait and their lead says no. The Cessna asks if he has time for a touch and go and again the answer is no. This prompts a go-around from the Cessna, and I see him at fairly low altitude on a right downwind for 33 (it's left traffic) and I listen to a volley of insults and comments about using the traffic pattern, listening to the radio, proper active runway use, general airmanship skills, courtesy, and whatnot fill my headset.

    Not one to be an FAR or AIM Nazi, I cannot help but be amazed at the free-for-all atmosphere that surrounds many uncontrolled fields and the "do as I please" attitude from pilots like this Cessna driver. He had the nerve to come in the wrong direction, not paying attention to the radio, and then get all pissy when people called him on it. The person who called him a dumbass on the radio hit it just right I think.

    Kurt
    Ex-Vice President

    63' Colt

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Some people...Shoulda got on the radio and said "Well the active is 33, don't mind me but you might want to watch for the C-130 doing touch n go's"...
    "Some people are like a Slinky, absolutely useless but you cant help but smile when you push them down the stairs."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Vandalia, IL
    Posts
    154

    Default

    That reminds me of the story about some calling out on the radio to watch out, there's a guy going the wrong way on downwind.

    A moment or two later, someone else comes on and says, "Hell there's about four guys going the wrong way on downwind."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    654

    Default

    now THAT is funny
    "Some people are like a Slinky, absolutely useless but you cant help but smile when you push them down the stairs."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Peoria Arizona
    Posts
    609

    Default

    Well, it has been a couple of days since somone beat up on me for holding a "minority opinion" on something, so here comes some ammunition. I imbedded some "food for thought" relative to the incident Kurt related. I wasn't there, but in reading the incident, I feel that there was a lot of the circumstance that a little understanding of both positions would have mitigated it getting out of hand. Admittedly, some of my comments imbeded within the quote are IMHO, but I think I can make regulatory citings over most of them, however I realize that in the heat of the circumstance, not everyone can be the FAR police. Anyway, "let the brickbats fly", I just pulled my Armadillo skin on !.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurts View Post
    Both of us in the pattern restate that we're landing 33 and three RV's on the ground announce their intention to depart as a flight of three off 33 and one of them calls to the Cessna and tells him that 33 is the active.
    There is no "Active" for an uncontrolled field. The Citation may have been released by an approach control facility to execute the published GPS approach which means that the Citation can do what the approach allows him to do and one of those things includes a Circling approach to any available runway straight in or not, it is the pilots choice.

    The Cessna seems to ignore this and makes another radio call for 15.
    IF this is his intention and is the safest thing to do for his aircraft, he is correct in telling everyone that he is going to continue to 15.

    The airplane ahead lands, I land, and as I pull off the runway I can see the Cessna on short final for 15. As soon as I clear, the RV's announce their departure on 33 and take the runway, much to the irritation of the Cessna who now sounds surprised that there is anyone else in the pattern. He asks the RV's if they can wait and their lead says no. The Cessna asks if he has time for a touch and go and again the answer is no.

    There is no authority at an uncontrolled field for a "Lead" aircraft to be announcing the intentions for a group of planes calling themselves a "formation" flight. (Actually, I don't even know if there is such a designation of a "formation flight" for a group of planes out on a saturday morning sojourn) This sounds like a group of pilots who wanted to prove a point that they wanted to takeoff NOW, they were the ones "not giving a damn" about other planes in the pattern. If everyone had cleared the runway, and everyone was fully aware of the Citation on final for 15 then the RV's were wrong to "press the position" and take the runway. That action was unacceptable and unnecessary. To force another airplane to make a go around by taking the opposing runway at an uncontrolled field cannot be supported in any fashion.

    This prompts a go-around from the Cessna, and I see him at fairly low altitude on a right downwind for 33 (it's left traffic) and I listen to a volley of insults and comments about using the traffic pattern, listening to the radio, proper active runway use, general airmanship skills, courtesy, and whatnot fill my headset.
    A plane executing a circling approach off a published GPS approach is by regulation charged with keeping the runway in sight. I have never felt that the published pattern direction superseeded the requirement to keep the runway in sight. The Citation could make the right pattern if he felt it resulted in compliance with his requirement to keep the runway in sight. IF he was restricted in his direction of pattern, then his apporoach plate would have clearly said CIRCLING N/A. If his plate didn't say that, then he was fully within his regulatory requirements to make a right pattern.

    Not one to be an FAR or AIM Nazi, I cannot help but be amazed at the free-for-all atmosphere that surrounds many uncontrolled fields and the "do as I please" attitude from pilots like this Cessna driver.
    As stated above, the Citation was not "doing as he pleased" he pretty much had the strength of regulations behind him. I think that if anyone was doing "as they pleased", it was the three RV pilots who could have mitigated all of the heartburn by holding their takeoff for a few minutes. You can't support in any fashion three pilots pulling onto a runway to force another plane to take what is essentially evasive manuevers to avoid conflict just because they wanted to take off and were pissed off about his opposite direction landing.

    He had the nerve to come in the wrong direction, not paying attention to the radio, and then get all pissy when people called him on it. The person who called him a dumbass on the radio hit it just right I think.

    Obviously the situation got away from everyone but I cannot support in any fashion calling someone a dumbass over the radio. To start arguing and using profanity over the radio only ties up the airwaves and doesn't accomplish anything. We are expected to make better responses to these type of things than that. IMHO.
    If you got this far , thanks for reading. I respect anyones right to disagree with my preceeding verbosity. Homer

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Gay, WV
    Posts
    39

    Default

    I wonder who the Citation driver was listening to? APC until short final or the CTAF. The airplane in the air always has the right of way but he should have also been listening to CTAF. And a 10 mile final...... I would say no one else at the uncontrolled field was listening to or talking to APC. I always wondered if APC tells the Citation driver to maintain VFR but the bottom line is that he had the right of way. Doesn't matter too much if your dead.
    Bob N72672

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Granbury TX
    Posts
    68

    Default

    The Citation on 10 mile straight in for 33 is not the Cessna that showed up using GPS approach 15 correct, or did I miss that point?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Well in case anyone is interested, theres always this;

    FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS, 14 CFR)
    FARs > Part 91 > Section 113 - Right-of-way rules: Except water operation

    (a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.

    (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

    (c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.

    (d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories --

    (1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

    (2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, airplane, or rotorcraft; and

    (3) An airship has the right-of-way over an airplane or rotorcraft.

    However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

    (e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.

    (f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.

    (g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
    "Some people are like a Slinky, absolutely useless but you cant help but smile when you push them down the stairs."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Cline View Post
    The Citation on 10 mile straight in for 33 is not the Cessna that showed up using GPS approach 15 correct, or did I miss that point?
    My understanding Patrick, it was one and the same
    "Some people are like a Slinky, absolutely useless but you cant help but smile when you push them down the stairs."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roseville, CA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Actually, the story got mixed up a bit along the way. The Citation was the first aircraft to land 33 and did so with many radio calls advising intentions, and some that were back and forth to another aircraft that came on the frequency and ended up following, (I have you in sight" "thank you") etc. The Citation did not cause a problem because the pattern had been empty for a few minutes prior to their first "10 mile final to 33" radio call. They landed and taxied to the ramp without incident or conflict. I was outside the pattern but was monitoring the frequency and when I returned to the pattern I followed another arriving aircraft who was entering the pattern for 33.

    The problem aircraft was a Cessna 182 (I should have made that clear) who was on a practice GPS approach and who rather than joining the now in use pattern for runway 33, in which there were now two airplanes (myself included) plus the aircraft on the ground waiting to takeoff, decided to disregard the radio calls from all the other aircraft and continue his approach to the runway that was opposite the direction of the current traffic flow, and then got mad when people called him on it.

    In my mind, if I went to any uncontrolled field in the country and tried the same, I would be "talked to" on the radio and could probably expect a visit from another pilot when I got on the ground. I'd like to think it is safe to assume that "when in Rome", you enter the traffic direction that is currently and actively being used at an airport and land on the runway that everyone else is using rather than pushing your way in and causing conflicts?

    Kurt
    Ex-Vice President

    63' Colt

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Peoria Arizona
    Posts
    609

    Default

    I kind of thought that there were two planes involved, and tried to write the conditions of my reply as concentrating on the fact that whichever plane was shooting the GPS approach, Citation or "other Cessna" was entitled to fly the GPS in accordance with his approach procedure if it could be worked out with the prevailing traffic. It appears that he did try to negotiate an acceptable resolution by doing the correct thing and trying to resolve the conflict by asking the RV planes to hold their takeoff. They told him to pound sand. In my mind, the issue could have been resolved with a little more give and take from all involved, and it appears that everyone chose to bitch at each other over the radio instead of help each other out.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roseville, CA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Possibly. I think the major beef was that the pilot of the Cessna made no acknowledgement that there were other aircraft landing the opposite direction and never announced his intention to do a touch-and-go until his 2 mile final call. Other aircraft had called him several times with no response and it seemed as though he was oblivious to the fact there were aircraft in the pattern for the opposite runway.

    The AIM does state: Pilots conducting practice instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft operating in the local traffic pattern or in proximity to the airport.

    You do often hear the phrase "traffic permitting" being used in radio transmissions and at least that shows some thought and consideration for other pilots being used. When I go to an uncontrolled field as an IFR arrival I listen to the freq as much in advance as possible, enter the pattern in an approved manner, use the runway in use (unless performance requirements dictate otherwise), and try to be as unobtrusive as possible to the other traffic in the pattern because they were there first.

    I think that playing well with others is a big part of flying and there is no room for the "do it with attitude" culture that seems so prevalent these days. Just think if we flew like we drove! Air Rage??

    Kurt
    Ex-Vice President

    63' Colt

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Well at least I hope a 337 for wing mounted .30's or .50's would be pretty tough to get approved....


    (on second thought a couple of .50 cal tracers across his bow would have resolved this with a lot less talk )
    "Some people are like a Slinky, absolutely useless but you cant help but smile when you push them down the stairs."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Marysville, OH
    Posts
    176

    Default

    It's also possible that the offending Cessna on GPS approach had is radio or audio panel configured improperly and never heard the replies until he realized his mistake. I've seen (and done) this before, it is embarrassing at best.
    Dean Dayton

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deandayton View Post
    It's also possible that the offending Cessna on GPS approach had is radio or audio panel configured improperly and never heard the replies until he realized his mistake. I've seen (and done) this before, it is embarrassing at best.
    True, I know of a cat cruising fat dumb and happy, right through NASA's restricted airspace, he never heard their attempts to hail him...
    "Some people are like a Slinky, absolutely useless but you cant help but smile when you push them down the stairs."

  16. #16
    joewcasey Guest

    Default

    I tend to agree with Homer, although I would fault the offending C182 shooting the PRACTICE approach to 15. He wasn't lower or closer, therefore had no reason to expect the right of way. As a freight dog who always looks for the straight in, I understand that unless I can get into my desired runway without interrupting the flow of traffic, as a professional courtesy, I have no business going against that flow unless it can be done seamlessly.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joewcasey View Post
    I tend to agree with Homer, although I would fault the offending C182 shooting the PRACTICE approach to 15. He wasn't lower or closer, therefore had no reason to expect the right of way. As a freight dog who always looks for the straight in, I understand that unless I can get into my desired runway without interrupting the flow of traffic, as a professional courtesy, I have no business going against that flow unless it can be done seamlessly.
    Exactly, seems like one of those things you shouldn't need to say.
    "Some people are like a Slinky, absolutely useless but you cant help but smile when you push them down the stairs."

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Roseville, CA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    I agree completely!
    Ex-Vice President

    63' Colt

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

Home | Officers | Chapters | Members | Classifieds | Conventions