Circuit Courtesy

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Chuck Finley
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:01 am

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by Chuck Finley »

Maybe he needed to land asap because he was running low of fuel?? ;)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meddler
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:18 pm

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by Meddler »

:lol: good one!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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......
---------- ADS -----------
 
Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
PostmasterGeneral
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by PostmasterGeneral on Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
PostmasterGeneral
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by PostmasterGeneral »

Cat Driver wrote: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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Liquid Charlie
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
Location: YXL
Contact:

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by Liquid Charlie »

common sense
there is that fuking phrase --- again :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black Air has no Lift - Extra Fuel has no Weight

ACTPA :kriz:
User avatar
Rookie50
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:00 am
Location: Clear of the Active.

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Liquid Charlie
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
Location: YXL
Contact:

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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 -----
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black Air has no Lift - Extra Fuel has no Weight

ACTPA :kriz:
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by Cat Driver »

Exactly Charlie, like I said.
If I were inbound on a medevac and time was critical
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Liquid Charlie
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
Location: YXL
Contact:

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by Liquid Charlie »

Damn -- well you usually do beat me to the draw -- :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black Air has no Lift - Extra Fuel has no Weight

ACTPA :kriz:
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by Cat Driver »

Ahhh yes Charlie, but you are more cultured than me.
there is that fuking phrase
:mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
black hole
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by black hole »

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

BH
---------- ADS -----------
 
TeePeeCreeper
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: in the bush

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by TeePeeCreeper »

Rookie50 wrote:
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
---------- ADS -----------
 
wingandaprayer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by wingandaprayer »

Could you point me to the CARS reference for this?
---------- ADS -----------
 
"this is how you smile to someone you don't like too much; this is how you smile to someone you don't like at all; this is how you smile to someone you like completely; this is how you set a table for tea." ~ Jamaica Kincaid, "Girl"
TeePeeCreeper
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: in the bush

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by TeePeeCreeper »

wingandaprayer wrote: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
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5927
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TeePeeCreeper
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: in the bush

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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
---------- ADS -----------
 
wingandaprayer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"this is how you smile to someone you don't like too much; this is how you smile to someone you don't like at all; this is how you smile to someone you like completely; this is how you set a table for tea." ~ Jamaica Kincaid, "Girl"
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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....
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cyeg66
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: of my mind is in gutter.

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by cyeg66 »

PilotDAR wrote: 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. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Turn right/left heading XXX, vectors for the hell of it.
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5927
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Circuit Courtesy

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”