Circuit Courtesy

[PilotDAR]

My local airport seems to be a destination for cross country touch and goes, pilots seem to fly in, but not stay. Oh well, it's a nice airport, their loss. However, this lack of commitment for a a full stop visit should not translate to blasting straight in on final and straight out when others of us are established in the circuit - JOIN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN TO LAND!

I was training the new owner in the 182 amphibian today, and while in the circuit, on base, we had to give way to a 150 pilot who decided to just land straight in. He was told that we were established in the circuit, but he just cut us off. Behind him, were another 150 doing a straight in, a Lear jet behind him, who broke off for a full circuit, and a 172 behind him, I did not even track. I first saw the offending 150 as it descended from above me, and appeared in the upper windshield, going the same direction, as we turned final. So I broke off, and went around on the dead side. The 150 completed his touch and go, and paralleled us on his departure.

I get that an MF airport confers upon pilots the privilege to fly a straight in approach, and I sometimes do it too - unless doing so disrupts the traffic already established in the circuit. But pilots still must give way to aircraft ahead, lower or slower on final approach, and it would seem simply courteous to not cut into the middle of an active circuit, GO TO THE PROPER ENTRY POINT!

What worries me the most is that at least two of these are probably student pilots, who are learning that this bull headed way of flying is somehow acceptable. It is not! Show some courtesy, and share the airspace!

[Chuck Finley]

Maybe he needed to land asap because he was running low of fuel??

[Meddler]

good one!

[PilotDAR]

Maybe he needed to land asap because he was running low of fuel

Then certainly say so, and I would happily surrender my circuit position with great understanding!

As he stated the intention of a touch and go, I'm thinking he was carrying significantly more fuel than one of my recent flights, and should therefore demonstrate circuit courtesy......

[Schooner69A]

PilotDAR: maybe you should emulate we here in the Okanagan when we inform some hapless sod that "RIGHT CIRCUITS ON RUNWAY 05 ARE FOR NIGHT TIME OPERATIONS ONLY".

I know it's mostly a case of "Let he who is without sin...etc", but it does get wearing hearing "...will cross overhead to join right downwind for 05..." when the book is quite clear.

[PostmasterGeneral]

"You know what really grinds my gears..."

Sorry, but I call BS on this theory. All too often those "in the circuit" feel they have some sort of priority because they were there first. Sorry to upset you and make you extend your downwind an extra half mile (oh the humanity!) but if I'm inbound on a medevac for example, I sure as hell am not going to join a downwind just to keep the NIMBY's happy when a straight in ahead of a 172 would do... I'm coming in at 180 knots, you're at 70. What's easier? For me to join the downwind and worry about riding up your ass when you're on final, or for you to extend a half-mile while I've already touched down?

I should note that this has nothing to do with what the "rulebook" says. In the real world, it makes sense. Airmanship is something that is learned with experience, not read out of a book. I've learned in my 15 years of flying that common sense usually prevails.

[Cat Driver]

If I were inbound on a medevac and time was critical I would advise those in the circuit of my intentions and if there was no conflict I would continue the straight in......that would be using common sense and also showing courtesy.

[PostmasterGeneral]

If I were inbound on a medevac and time was critical I would advise those in the circuit of my intentions and if there was no conflict I would continue the straight in......that would be using common sense and also showing courtesy.

But define "conflict" in this sense? I've had many occasions where I've been on medevac, announced my intentions for the straight in, and some moron student pilot STILL ends up cutting me off on final because he's used to turning base at that same spot, every time, and because neither he or his instructor had bothered to have any sort of situational awareness, and even announced that they would give way. It lead to a CADOR on more than one occasion. Thank god for t-smash...

Not trying to insinuate that coming in for a straight in entitles someone to some sort of priority, but again, common sense should prevail here. If I'm estimating the field in 5 minutes, and you're just about to blast off for the circuit, maybe consider that and make a plan ahead of time, instead of getting pissed that someone "cut you off" in the circuit. Thinking ahead, "hey, maybe we should extend this downwind" for example. Not rocket science.

[PilotDAR]

All too often those "in the circuit" feel they have some sort of priority because they were there first. Sorry to upset you and make you extend your downwind an extra half mile (oh the humanity!) but if I'm inbound on a medevac for example, I sure as hell am not going to join a downwind just to keep the NIMBY's happy when a straight in ahead of a 172 would do... I'm coming in at 180 knots, you're at 70. What's easier?

Sure, I agree with that. As long as both aircraft acknowledge each other, and it works safely, whatever works. It's the notion of a straight in aircraft placing circuit traffic in a "don't know where to go" situation, particularly if separation is not being assured, which worries me. More so, new pilots seeming to learn that that is "normal" - it is not. It's when I have extended my downwind 2 miles, and I still can't confirm where the straight in traffic is, that I get concerned.

In this case, the very busy radio chatter was a definite negative, aircraft simply could not relay their position fast enough. Happily, I have had a few conversations this morning, and I am very satisfied that the concern is understood, and more attention will be paid. I have spoken with Nav Canada about the rather protracted transmissions from FSS simply taking up too much air time. Yesterday, during a normal circuit, I turned from downwind, through base, flew final, landed, and turned off the runway, without having a break in the radio long enough to report any position. Having FSS report the position of every aircraft in the zone, to every other aircraft in the zone, when there are more than a few, just ties up too much radio time. At un controlled aerodromes, no one on the ground is tying up the radio, at controlled airports, the controller is simply controlling, not telling every plane about every other, and asking your point of departure. FSS managing an MF zone can be the worst of both of those. Nav Canada now knows my feelings about this.

[Liquid Charlie]

common sense

there is that fuking phrase --- again

[Rookie50]

"too much MF chatter"!
PD a large + 1! It's ---- a little chaotic at times. In fact -- I rather question at times the creation that is MF for exactly this reason, as it becomes a repeating swirl of chatter during a busy day at CYQA, and pure uncontrolled would be arguably safer. Things can get missed.

A better more common sense approach, but one that likely doesn't absolve the Mf controller legally, is to each new airplane checking in -- who hopefully has been listening! -- the MF can say, "GABC, confirming you check existing (3) airplanes in the zone, say intentions?" or something.

BTW I agree with PD also on joining the existing circuit, unless you are a MEDEVAC, fine then --- clearly communicated.

[Liquid Charlie]

MEDEVAC

-- most abused term in aviation -- unless you are a code 4 -- there should be no priority and should have the level of professionalism to declare yourself as non-priority -- and yes I have been a medevac pilot and would not even use the term unless there was a priority and if declaring a priority didn't get enough service -- "may day" would follow -----

[Cat Driver]

Exactly Charlie, like I said.

If I were inbound on a medevac and time was critical

[Liquid Charlie]

Damn -- well you usually do beat me to the draw --

[Cat Driver]

Ahhh yes Charlie, but you are more cultured than me.

there is that fuking phrase

[black hole]

But maybe he was a student pilot and doesn't speak English yet?

BH

[TeePeeCreeper]

A better more common sense approach, but one that likely doesn't absolve the Mf controller legally, is to each new airplane checking in -- who hopefully has been listening! -- the MF can say, "GABC, confirming you check existing (3) airplanes in the zone, say intentions?" or something.

BTW I agree with PD also on joining the existing circuit, unless you are a MEDEVAC, fine then --- clearly communicated.

What you've suggested already exists...

On your initial call: "GABC, 5 North, inbound yours in 3, "with your numbers and traffic"

Problem solved!

All the best,
TPC

[wingandaprayer]

Could you point me to the CARS reference for this?

[TeePeeCreeper]

Could you point me to the CARS reference for this?

Wish I could... It's not a CAR's mandated thing... Good try at stirring the proverbial "pot" though!

Used the term with countless FSS units over the years and until Nav Canada closed my home base's FSS unit. Never had any issues with what I suggested... Give it a try and see if FSS will still try to give you "traffic and numbers" after you've said those "magical words"...

All the best,
TPC

[Big Pistons Forever]

From the AIM. Not regulatory but still from an official TC document.

4.5.6 Use of MF and ATF

Whenever the CFS indicates that reports are to be made to
a ground station, the initial transmission should be made to
the station. To assist in reducing frequency congestion, pilots
are encouraged to use the phrase “HAVE NUMBERS” on
the initial call to a ground station (arrival or departure) to
indicate that they have received runway, wind and altimeter
information from the previous aerodrome advisory.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Thanks BPF,

Guess I wasn't stirring the pot after all....

CAR's this and CAR's that... Common sense dare I say (love the AIM!) The bottom line here? The AIM seems to be geared (dare I say) towards using common sense!
Oups, I almost forgot... If it's not covered by the CAR's is mustn't be taken as gospel!!

All the best,
TPC

[wingandaprayer]

If you say "have the numbers and traffic," they can skip giving you the runway, wind, altimeter and weather information, but FSS are still required to pass you traffic even if you say you have it.

[PilotDAR]

but FSS are still required to pass you traffic even if you say you have it.

And herein can lie a major problem! The traffic are all at a particular place relative to the airport (and other traffic), and they're all moving. Recently, I have been timing the time taken for FSS to pass traffic information to a new inbound aircraft. When there were three aircraft in the area, that time occasionally exceeded 1 minute, 15 seconds of air time, during which all that traffic has moved a mile and some - so by the time traffic is passed, it is no longer valid, and worse, during that entire time, pilots have not been able to make required calls. There have been time during the day, while established in the circuit, that I have turned base, final, landed, backtracked and cleared, and still had to wait engine running to call clear of the runway, having never had the opportunity to call turning final.

I have complained to Nav Canada, stating that an "advised" MF airport can be the worst of both combinations - that lack of positive ATC control of aircraft, but with worse radio congestion than uncontrolled unicom aerodromes, where at least the radio is quiet, other than for pilots stating their position and intention.

If pilots are unable to get radio time to make required position reports at MF airports, because FSS has the radio tied up providing traffic information which is more than a minute and two miles old, that to me is an unsafe situation. When pilots are aware that is happening at an airport, that's an even more vital time to join, and conform to a circuit, so as to reduce the need for traffic information, 'cause everyone is in one line up to land, where they are expected to be found....

[cyeg66]

I have complained to Nav Canada, stating that an "advised" MF airport can be the worst of both combinations - that lack of positive ATC control of aircraft, but with worse radio congestion than uncontrolled unicom aerodromes, where at least the radio is quiet, other than for pilots stating their position and intention.

Hey, careful now. NavCan management will heed your advice and do away with all FSS and controllers. "Pearson traffic, this is ACA001, tail GABC, crosswind over midfield for downwind left, 24L, we have the numbers." Lol, would be cool to watch and listen.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The good news is that more and more FSS are getting a radar feed. This obviates the need to ask pilots where they are and has significantly reduced frequency congestion at busy airports served by an FSS.

DAR:

If you experienced a situation where safety was compromised by the actions of the FSS than I highly recommend you file a CADOR.

Navcanada runs the FSS but TC is still the regulator. It is easy for NavCanada to brush off complaints to the service@navcanada.ca portal, but an inquiry from TC won't get ignored.

Finally most of the problem at uncontrolled airports are caused by poor radio techniques on the part of pilots. This is one area where flight instructors have got to start taking ownership of.