What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

The relationship between Right of Way and being a Jerk

Status
Not open for further replies.

wawrzynskivp

Well Known Member
I somewhat hesitate to share this experience because these things sometimes come across as whinge-ing.

Single runway non-towered field 14-32. CAVU, light variable winds no particular direction. No wind runway is 32. Three airplanes in pattern with tight interval each for full stop. One airplane at hold short of 14.

#3: XXX Traffic, N### on base full stop runway 32 XXX Traffic

#3: XXX Traffic, N### turning final runway 32 full stop XXX Traffic

Departing AC: XXX Traffic N### departing runway 14

#3 Aircraft taking 14, do you see the airplane on final for 32?

Departing Aircraft: Yes I see you, I am taking off 14

I was #3 watching an airplane begin their roll towards me when I was perhaps 300' off the ground on short final. I should have been lower but had begun my go-around and was beginning to side step the departing traffic.

Right of Way rules are far more than 'who is in the wrong' for any particular situation. They are a guide on how to behave and how to interact long before the conflict is apparent. I have no idea what was inside the individual's mind that set up a head on with landing traffic. But if they were a decent human being and fully understood Right of Way, then I can't see how they would have convinced themselves that not waiting that one more minute was worth it.

If we consider Right of Way to be clearly understandable and not 'confusing' as some people prefer to believe. Then we have a universal guide on how to avoid getting into meeting situations.

I urge anyone who thinks of 91.113 as confusing or vague to get back into those 341 words and read them until you understand them back and forth. Don't cheat yourself or somebody else by the excuses that 'they are badly worded' 'don't apply to every situation' 'contradict what my flight instructor taught me'

Right of way is not about forcing a meeting situation into a close call. Right of way is about not getting into meeting situations. It's about not being a jerk.

I offer this story and perspective because of the number of times certificated aviators give a scenario and ask 'who has the right of way?' If you have to ask, then ask...better than just not knowing. But the volume of questions on this subject is saying something. I also sense a lot of defensiveness and rice bowl thinking when the forum covers right of way. I feel too many people use well intentioned articles, or lectures, or advisory documents on pseudo 'right of way' in place of the actual rules. It takes less than three minutes to read the real thing! There is no substitute for knowing what the law says especially on something that has the potential to become a Time Critical Task on each and every flight. Pushing back on Right of Way by thinking that consideration is a better approach, is an incomplete understanding. We can be the most considerate in our flying by knowing enough about Right of Way that there is never a question in our minds or the minds of those we might otherwise meet.
 
Last edited:
life would be much simpler if the FAA just added two new FARS:
FAR #1 Don't be a jerk
FAR #2 See FAR #1
 
It is sad to see that the knuckleheads we see on the road are coming into aviation with the same “it’s all about me” attitude. It’s times like you described when I wish I had a trusty 20mm on the pointy end to dispose of such trash. Unfortunately these occasions of lack of courtesy or common sense are increasing instead of decreasing. If you tried to have a conversation with such an individual so that they might learn something they would ignore your efforts. I have found that see and avoid is the best course of action. Darwin has a way of catching up with knuckleheads, your mission is to not let them take you out.
 
Doing my best to not impugn anyone, just the behavior of that aircraft.

Well, I’m not above naming names. At nearby Byron (C83) there is a busy parachuting operation. The jumpers land, assemble, and depart near the approach end of 12. Even when the wind and traffic favor 30, the jump plane routinely departs on 12, even when there’s substantial traffic using 30. So I was in your shoes - short final for 30, jump plane on the runway coming at me. When I called (again) on the radio, they said, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll miss you’. It was too close for me, I aborted. I know these guys are a business, and ‘time is money’. But you get the impression that they think I’m not burning av gas, just like them.
Parachutists, gliders, powered aircraft, all use C83 and get along-except for that jump plane.
 
Well, I’m not above naming names. At nearby Byron (C83) there is a busy parachuting operation. The jumpers land, assemble, and depart near the approach end of 12. Even when the wind and traffic favor 30, the jump plane routinely departs on 12, even when there’s substantial traffic using 30. So I was in your shoes - short final for 30, jump plane on the runway coming at me. When I called (again) on the radio, they said, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll miss you’. It was too close for me, I aborted. I know these guys are a business, and ‘time is money’. But you get the impression that they think I’m not burning av gas, just like them.
Parachutists, gliders, powered aircraft, all use C83 and get along-except for that jump plane.

That's a tough one to endure ethically. My story could have been a one-off mistake for the airplane on 14, so not starting the Deviation process could be rationalized. But we all know shoe-string operations that begin to make completely unnecessary maneuvers part of their normal operations. When we can see the likelihood of the upcoming mishap on a non-stop ascent what do we do? 'I can hack it' is the mindset that is working against all of us. They can hack the tight departures, I can hack the go around, what about the schmuck who can't hack it?


Not saying I would know what to do...but it is a tough one you have my sympathies.
 
Thread hijack in progress....

....

#3: XXX Traffic, N### on base full stop runway 32 XXX Traffic

#3: XXX Traffic, N### turning final runway 32 full stop XXX Traffic

.....

Sorry to derail the train, but you illustrated something that is like the classic 'fingernails on the chalkboard' for me. It seems to be more and more popular for pilots to end their CTAF self-announce transmissions with the word "traffic".
Per the AIM, it isn't correct, and adds no value. For me, it's worse than the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology that gets maligned so often.
Thanks for enabling my rant
 
Sorry to derail the train, but you illustrated something that is like the classic 'fingernails on the chalkboard' for me. It seems to be more and more popular for pilots to end their CTAF self-announce transmissions with the word "traffic".
Per the AIM, it isn't correct, and adds no value. For me, it's worse than the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology that gets maligned so often.
Thanks for enabling my rant
+1 on both. By the same token, please don't omit the repeat of the airport identifier at the end of transmissions. It's not uncommon to hear "[garbled] traffic NXXX turning left downwind [end transmission]", which leaves me wondering, is that where I'm at?
 
From the Archives

The late great Robin Williams from decades ago: two 90 something ladies in their VW Bug on a Los Angeles Freeway, 50 caliber mounted on the roof. Look Ethyl, a slow moving _____ driver. Sound of machine gun.
On a more serious note this starts with poor instruction, continues with bogus BFR's or no BFR's and goes on and on. ATP's who can't do a steep bank turn to Private Check ride standards. Retired 747 Captains who make dangerously low
visual approaches, etc.
 
It should be obvious to anyone who has worked with radios for any length of time how important the repeat of the airport identifier is at the end of the transmission. It's just as important to listen, too.

A while back I was flying into an uncontrolled field on a beautiful calm clear day for a touch-and-go. I called my intentions 10 miles out and monitored the CTAF all the way in. The calm wind runway was designated 20, and I was approaching from the east so I planned to overfly the airport and return on the 45 as recommended. About 4 miles out I heard a string of calls about runway 02 and I could see several planes lined up at the approach end of 02, so I assumed 02 was in use and changed my plan to enter the 45 for that runway and announced the change. I entered the pattern hearing no more calls and did the standard announcements entering, base and final and completed the procedure. As I touched down I noticed 2 more aircraft proceeding to runway 20, and as I turned downwind I overhead one stating he was departing 20 and another calling to ask if he saw the traffic that had called short final for 02 (presumably me.)

So all this time apparently no one was paying attention to my calls, and no one saw the aircraft passing by them on the runway. I came away wishing I had stuck to my original plan, but wondering what could possibly have gone wrong that no fewer than 6 other pilots didn't pay enough attention to advise me that they were using runway 20. This could have had a much less pleasant outcome. Moral: It's not enough to self-announce, you have to listen carefully, too.

The Epilog is that at the next airport I went to also had calm conditions. I was monitoring from 15 miles out and heard another aircraft call up 10 miles out with "any aircraft in the pattern please advise." There was no one, so he proceeded to land opposite the calm wind runway. I chose to use the calm wind runway and keep my head on a swivel.

Any constructive advice would be welcome. I don't want to repeat either experience even though it worked out this time.
 
Not KGAI. Small field on the other side of the country.

Doing my best to not impugn anyone, just the behavior of that aircraft.

KEIK? Erie in Colorado?

I had the exact same thing happen on short final for me at KEIK. The plane that cut in front to take off looked like a small commercial plane, carrying passengers. I don't think any airlines fly out of there, so it may have been a charter or corporate jet. We were so close to landing when they took the runway that we side stepped and ended up pulling alongside the plane in the air, while they accelerated.

My right seat happened to be an examiner, since I was doing the checkride for my instrument ticket. He noted the tail number and said he would look into it and report it to the powers that be after we landed.

Besides being a jerk, you never know who you might be cutting off when you do it.
 
It should be obvious to anyone who has worked with radios for any length of time how important the repeat of the airport identifier is at the end of the transmission. It's just as important to listen, too.

A while back I was flying into an uncontrolled field on a beautiful calm clear day for a touch-and-go. I called my intentions 10 miles out and monitored the CTAF all the way in. The calm wind runway was designated 20, and I was approaching from the east so I planned to overfly the airport and return on the 45 as recommended. About 4 miles out I heard a string of calls about runway 02 and I could see several planes lined up at the approach end of 02, so I assumed 02 was in use and changed my plan to enter the 45 for that runway and announced the change. I entered the pattern hearing no more calls and did the standard announcements entering, base and final and completed the procedure. As I touched down I noticed 2 more aircraft proceeding to runway 20, and as I turned downwind I overhead one stating he was departing 20 and another calling to ask if he saw the traffic that had called short final for 02 (presumably me.)

So all this time apparently no one was paying attention to my calls, and no one saw the aircraft passing by them on the runway. I came away wishing I had stuck to my original plan, but wondering what could possibly have gone wrong that no fewer than 6 other pilots didn't pay enough attention to advise me that they were using runway 20. This could have had a much less pleasant outcome. Moral: It's not enough to self-announce, you have to listen carefully, too.

The Epilog is that at the next airport I went to also had calm conditions. I was monitoring from 15 miles out and heard another aircraft call up 10 miles out with "any aircraft in the pattern please advise." There was no one, so he proceeded to land opposite the calm wind runway. I chose to use the calm wind runway and keep my head on a swivel.

Any constructive advice would be welcome. I don't want to repeat either experience even though it worked out this time.

Part of it is the nature of Non-Towered operations. Imagine that depending how your airspace is cut there may be aircraft there with no radios at all.

You can always reach out and see if you can get some SA: Aircraft at hold short runway 2 will you be departing? That may have helped your picture and there is nothing wrong with asking if there is free air time.

Sometimes you are going to do everything right and so is somebody else and it's going to not mesh. Head on a swivel.

Labile was a word we used in human factor investigations suggesting the tendency to change plans too quickly. Inflexibility is bad, over flexibility can be bad too. Not saying you were, just something to guard against.

I once watched three airplanes change sides of the airport twice not being able to decide which way to launch.
 
Just to clarify, AC 90-66b clearly indicates that the word "traffic" follows the airport identifier in all the examples they cite. I think most people follow the guidance in this advisory circular for non-towered airports. They also discourage use of the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology in paragraph 10.3.1. as you have correctly noted.

Sorry to derail the train, but you illustrated something that is like the classic 'fingernails on the chalkboard' for me. It seems to be more and more popular for pilots to end their CTAF self-announce transmissions with the word "traffic".
Per the AIM, it isn't correct, and adds no value. For me, it's worse than the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology that gets maligned so often.
Thanks for enabling my rant
 
life would be much simpler if the FAA just added two new FARS:
FAR #1 Don't be a jerk
FAR #2 See FAR #1

Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6_2d-dV8k&ab_channel=VASAviation-


Sorry to derail the train, but you illustrated something that is like the classic 'fingernails on the chalkboard' for me. It seems to be more and more popular for pilots to end their CTAF self-announce transmissions with the word "traffic".
Per the AIM, it isn't correct, and adds no value. For me, it's worse than the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology that gets maligned so often.
Thanks for enabling my rant

How would you prefer people end their transmission? (Not sarcasm, honestly curious how you would like radio transmissions to be made at a NTA.)
 
Last edited:
Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6_2d-dV8k&ab_channel=VASAviation-




How would you prefer people end their transmission? (Not sarcasm, honestly curious how you would like radio transmissions to be made at a NTA.)

Wow!! I guess N41ND wants to be an ATC controller. If it was me after that nonsense, I'd slow to 60 knots on final in front of this guy, full stop, slow exit. No wait, "that's way too dangerous, too many airplanes in the pattern" :D Surprised nobody called out his nonsense, or maybe it didn't make the video. I wonder if that's part of his "Adventure" business? :confused: Like I said before, knuckleheads on the highway are coming our way. Share the airspace, have fun, be safe.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to think I'd say something like:

Jerk Jet Guy: There are way to many airplanes here...let me boss you around

Me: You're right, why don't you head somewhere else.

But I'd actually just slow down and try to make room for him, see new FAA rule #1 don't be a jerk. :cool:

If it was me after that nonsense, I'd slow to 60 knots on final in front of this guy, full stop, slow exit.

I'm sure that this was said in jest, but I think it's pertinent to point out that being a jerk in response to a jerk still breaks new FAA rule #1 ;)
 
Last edited:
unbelievable

Unbelievable how many pilots don't know the rules on right of way.
In the interest of safety most of us simply yield to the "bullies" or the oblivious.

On a recent trip to Hollister Ca. I entered the left landing pattern to follow 2 planes spread out in front of me and 2 more joining behind me.
Everyone proceeded in an orderly fashion until I turned off the runway on a cross runway and came face to face with an errant pilot who decided to avoid the " crazies" in the pattern and land sideways into the active runway.
There are parallel taxiways to the runways and the only way to acces those is by either exiting at the end or turn off at the crossing runway.
An accident was averted by me turning into the gravel and scratching up the wingtip on a taxiway light.
Clearly, the winds favored runway 34 where all the traffic landed except the clown in the 185. Needless to say, I had words with him after he tied down his plane. He tried to justify his actions by accusing me of not announcing a taxi back on his runway. I was simply turning off to reach the parallel taxiway and there were 2 more planes behind me, one on short final. He said he didn't want to join the "crazies" in the pattern and do his own thing. I too do my own thing at times for x-wind practice but I make **** sure no one else is inconvenienced or endangered when they are using the favored runway.
Too many of those clown out there
 
AIM 4-1-9

How would you prefer people end their transmission? (Not sarcasm, honestly curious how you would like radio transmissions to be made at a NTA.)

From AIM 4-1-9:
EXAMPLE:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE), (DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE) RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL-STOP, TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE SEVEN STRAWN.

(b) Outbound

EXAMPLE:
STRAWN TRAFFIC QUEEN AIR SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEEN AIR SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING RUNWAY TWO SIX. “DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION), CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.”

You will notice the word "TRAFFIC" is not used to end the transmission, only the location name. Thanks for asking.
 
Just to clarify, AC 90-66b clearly indicates that the word "traffic" follows the airport identifier in all the examples they cite. I think most people follow the guidance in this advisory circular for non-towered airports. They also discourage use of the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology in paragraph 10.3.1. as you have correctly noted.
AC 90-66b para 10.1.1:
"3. To help identify one airport from another, the correct airport name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each self-announce transmission."

The word "traffic" is not part of the airport name.
 
From AIM 4-1-9:
EXAMPLE:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE), (DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE) RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL-STOP, TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE SEVEN STRAWN.

(b) Outbound

EXAMPLE:
STRAWN TRAFFIC QUEEN AIR SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEEN AIR SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING RUNWAY TWO SIX. “DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION), CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.”

You will notice the word "TRAFFIC" is not used to end the transmission, only the location name. Thanks for asking.


It's good to have feelings about things, not convinced this is the forum for it. You do realize that the AIM (unless citing a FAR) can only give you advice and suggestions right? There is nothing whatsoever 'wrong' with doing things differently from the AIM or an AC so long as they are within the regulations and safe. There is a world of things we can do that are not in the AIM. The AC 91-66 straddles the fence on this wording and I am sure there are other references out there that suggest all kinds of other formats. But this post is about FARs and Safety.

As this is our Safety Forum could you describe what is unsafe about repeating 'traffic' at the end of the transmission?

The weird thing is that I wrote the language that offends you only to help readers get what the second XXX meant, in practice I don't use the second 'traffic' but couldn't care less about anybody else who does.
 
Last edited:
Ya know

You can't fix stupid.
I like flyin instead of dyein. I'm gonna give leeway to stupid any day.
Been here to long to be taken out by bad pilotage. Cause they were informed at some point in the past during training. I hope.
My three cents worth. Art
 
Just to clarify, AC 90-66b clearly indicates that the word "traffic" follows the airport identifier in all the examples they cite. I think most people follow the guidance in this advisory circular for non-towered airports. They also discourage use of the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology in paragraph 10.3.1. as you have correctly noted.

Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6_2d-dV8k&ab_channel=VASAviation-

How would you prefer people end their transmission? (Not sarcasm, honestly curious how you would like radio transmissions to be made at a NTA.)

From AIM 4-1-9:
EXAMPLE:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE), (DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE) RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL-STOP, TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE SEVEN STRAWN.

(b) Outbound

EXAMPLE:
STRAWN TRAFFIC QUEEN AIR SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEEN AIR SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING RUNWAY TWO SIX. “DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION), CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.”

You will notice the word "TRAFFIC" is not used to end the transmission, only the location name. Thanks for asking.

It's good to have feelings about things, not convinced this is the forum for it. You do realize that the AIM (unless citing a FAR) can only give you advice and suggestions right? There is nothing whatsoever 'wrong' with doing things differently from the AIM or an AC so long as they are within the regulations and safe. There is a world of things we can do that are not in the AIM. The AC 91-66 straddles the fence on this wording and I am sure there are other references out there that suggest all kinds of other formats. But this post is about FARs and Safety.

As this is our Safety Forum could you describe what is unsafe about repeating 'traffic' at the end of the transmission?

The weird thing is that I wrote the language that offends you only to help readers get what the second XXX meant, in practice I don't use the second 'traffic' but couldn't care less about anybody else who does.
A lot of comments on the “correct” phraseology here. So, honestly this discussion isn’t really related to whether there is some FAA regulation that is “The Law” set in writing somewhere. What it really boils down to is how, in our society, we communicate with one another.

That communication comes in a specific form when we are talking with someone we have not talked to before. In that conversation we state:

  • WHO it is we are addressing, (ADA traffic)
  • Tell them WHO we are, (N446RV)
  • Tell them WHERE we are, (3 miles east at 2500’)
  • Tell them WHAT we plan to do, (Will enter the left downwind at the 45 for 18, full stop)
  • Finish with not WHO we are talking with, but instead WHERE the conversation is being held. (ADA)

Granted, the last statement is rarely, if ever, used in our day to day conversations. However, I think the AIM is using this final statement to help with the very situation we are discussing when the beginning of the transmission is garbled.

So, to address the question that was posed as to what exactly we should say at the end if we don’t say “traffic” at the end of the broadcast; we don’t say anything after the name of the airport. The reason is because we are not finishing our broadcast with WHO we are talking to! We are finishing the broadcast with WHERE we are while we are stating all of this!

Those AIM examples are indeed examples of how we ALL talk to each other in these type of situations.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to derail the train, but you illustrated something that is like the classic 'fingernails on the chalkboard' for me. It seems to be more and more popular for pilots to end their CTAF self-announce transmissions with the word "traffic".
Per the AIM, it isn't correct, and adds no value. For me, it's worse than the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology that gets maligned so often.
Thanks for enabling my rant


My favorite is N bla bla bla, departing to the North LAST CALL, Or N bla bla bla, turning left final.
 
I would think a 44709 ride might be awarded purely on the failure to divert in light of an unsafe assessment of the landing environment.

Whoever said 'Sweet' gets a beer from me.

Being immortalized on the internet for the wrong reason is almost as bad, and I'd buy the second beer for that guy.


From AIM 4-1-9:
...
You will notice the word "TRAFFIC" is not used to end the transmission, only the location name. Thanks for asking.

VAF forums,
Thanks for the refresher. Been 20somethinng years since I did GA, almost time to brush off the rust.
VAF


;)
 
Last edited:
The best comment was:

Flack55: "I've been the fast guy in the pattern, I've been the slow guy in the pattern, but I've always striven to not be THAT guy in the pattern..."

-Marc
 
[LIST said:
[*]WHO it is we are addressing, (ADA traffic)
[*]Tell them WHO we are, (N446RV)
[*]Tell them WHERE we are, (3 miles east at 2500’)
[*]Tell them WHAT we plan to do, (Will enter the left downwind at the 45 for 18, full stop)
[*]Finish with not WHO we are talking with, but instead WHERE the conversation is being held. (ADA)
[/LIST]

Seriously, what Safety concern is raised in this discussion on getting twisted over discretionary vernacular? I can think of only one: If somebody saying 'traffic' at the end of a transmission gets inside your OODA loop when you're in the pattern then you're bringing the wrong priorities into the cockpit.

Is this Safety, or 'Pet Peeve?' Hint: Pet Peeve

But I'm all ears here, tell me where the unsafe act lay?


"Safety: All things safety. Anything that promotes safety."
 
Last edited:
As this is our Safety Forum could you describe what is unsafe about repeating 'traffic' at the end of the transmission?

The problem is "traffic" conveys no information to anyone and is just noise. Why would you even think of using it? The point of repeating the airport identifier is to ensure that the aircraft in the vicinity of the airport know the transmission is relevant to them. Sometimes the beginning of a transmission is cut off for any of a variety of reasons.

Seriously, what Safety concern is raised in this discussion on getting twisted over discretionary vernacular? I can think of only one: If somebody saying 'traffic' at the end of a transmission gets inside your OODA loop when you're in the pattern then you're bringing the wrong priorities into the cockpit.

Is this Safety, or 'Pet Peeve?' Hint: Pet Peeve

But I'm all ears here, tell me where the unsafe act lay?


"Safety: All things safety. Anything that promotes safety."

I routinely hear 5 or 6 other airports on the same frequency on a good day. When I hear someone on the radio calling "turning final runway xxx, traffic" and I'm on final as well, I don't know if they're at the same airport or not, and now my attention is turned away from landing to figuring out if there's some invisible aircraft about to hit me. Maybe they clipped the beginning of the transmission or I was busy and missed it or terrain blocked it. That ending word may be the only way I know whether it's relevant to me. How is that not a safety issue?
 
Last edited:
The problem is "traffic" conveys no information to anyone and is just noise. Why would you even think of using it? The point of repeating the airport identifier is to ensure that the aircraft in the vicinity of the airport know the transmission is relevant to them. Sometimes the beginning of a transmission is cut off for any of a variety of reasons.

As is the end of a transmission, so having a superfluous and innocuous word at the end would be beneficial by helping to make sure the airport name gets out right? Kinda like pedantic radio procedure where we say 'over' and 'out' and things like that. Our current usage demonstrates those words were superfluous by context, but still served a purpose.

To answer your question: I thought to use it in my write up of the anecdote so that the second XXX wasn't confusing. I don't use it in practice but like I wrote before I don't care if anyone else does. You have read this thread all the way right?

If 'Traffic' conveys 'no information' then why say it at the beginning?

You still have not identified a Safety Concern. Let me help you out: Without getting ridiculous, describe a scenario where saying 'traffic' at the end of a CTAF transmission led or would lead to a mishap?
 
Last edited:
If 'Traffic' conveys 'no information' then why say it at the beginning?

?

I believe that "traffic" is to state the intended audience (other pilots) vs "radio" (FSS station). I am guessing that in the early days, FSS and CTAF shared frequencies. FSS names were the same as the airport they were based at and still are. After adding a bunch of Freq's they are no longer shared, but the legacy remains. If I just said xxxx, how do you know I am not intending to speak to the FBO on Unicom, which is typically the same freq and name.

same reason you say xxxx tower and not just xxxx when calling up. Or xxxx Approach or xxxx departure or xxxx center. It is a std convention that helps ALL parties to catch mistakes and drive clarity.

I am a bit shocked that people are so up in arms and upset about someone using the word traffic. I think this thread shows there is much worse behavior we should be worried about. Do you guys get just as upset when a new student gets on the radio and screws the whole transmission up? Thats really the same as a pilot adding traffic at the end, likely out of habit from initial training. A little tolerance helps keep harmony in the community.

Lary
 
Last edited:
The problem is "traffic" conveys no information to anyone and is just noise. Why would you even think of using it? The point of repeating the airport identifier is to ensure that the aircraft in the vicinity of the airport know the transmission is relevant to them. Sometimes the beginning of a transmission is cut off for any of a variety of reasons.


I think people are getting a little hung up on "traffic". As was previously discussed, FAA AC 90-66b section 10 repeatedly recommends use of the word "traffic". If you don't want to use it, cool. But if people follow the recommendation and do, let's not get too worked up over it.

What value does it add? It does clarify that you are talking to traffic in the air. A pilot could have a need to talk to the FBO or ground equipment from the air, or ground equipment could be in communication, or someone could be ground testing radios, so "traffic" signifies that other pilots in the air should pay attention.
 
The problem is "traffic" conveys no information to anyone and is just noise. Why would you even think of using it? The point of repeating the airport identifier is to ensure that the aircraft in the vicinity of the airport know the transmission is relevant to them. Sometimes the beginning of a transmission is cut off for any of a variety of reasons.



I routinely hear 5 or 6 other airports on the same frequency on a good day. When I hear someone on the radio calling "turning final runway xxx, traffic" and I'm on final as well, I don't know if they're at the same airport or not, and now my attention is turned away from landing to figuring out if there's some invisible aircraft about to hit me. Maybe they clipped the beginning of the transmission or I was busy and missed it or terrain blocked it. That ending word may be the only way I know whether it's relevant to me. How is that not a safety issue?

You are off the rails here. I'll repeat my anecdote for you with a made up name: "Frostbite Falls Traffic, N321 on base full stop runway 32 Frostbite Falls Traffic"

Nobody here is talking about clipping out the airport name at the end, it's useful I agree, it promotes Safety I agree. The bugaboo is including 'traffic' the second time. This whole thing is ridiculous since I don't do that flying, I just did it for clarity with the second XXX in my written anecdote.

If you aren't going to stick to Safety, then at least read the thread?
 
Last edited:
I believe that "traffic" is to state the intended audience (other pilots) vs "radio" (FSS station). I am guessing that in the early days, FSS and CTAF shared frequencies. FSS names were the same as the airport they were based at and still are. After adding a bunch of Freq's they are no longer shared, but the legacy remains. If I just said xxxx, how do you know I am not intending to speak to the FBO on Unicom, which is typically the same freq and name.

same reason you say xxxx tower and not just xxxx when calling up. Or xxxx Approach or xxxx departure or xxxx center. It is a std convention that helps ALL parties to catch mistakes and drive clarity.

I am a bit shocked that people are so up in arms and upset about someone using the word traffic. I think this thread shows there is much worse behavior we should be worried about.


Lary

Was begging the question Lary, yes it has meaning! And THANK YOU! I'd say thank God for you, but that would start another non-safety food fight.
 
Last edited:
I find it ironic that the OP started this thread to demonstrate how NOT to be a jerk, and we've got a handful of people yammering at each other over a truly inconsequential item demonstrating the opposite.

I'm glad to know everyone here is top-shelf pilot material and has it all figured out, and this is the last question needing solved in aviation.
 
I find it ironic that the OP started this thread to demonstrate how NOT to be a jerk, and we've got a handful of people yammering at each other over a truly inconsequential item demonstrating the opposite.

I'm glad to know everyone here is top-shelf pilot material and has it all figured out, and this is the last question needing solved in aviation.


Thank God for you too! Oh %$#, I said it out loud.
 
You are off the rails here. I'll repeat my anecdote for you with a made up name: "Frostbite Falls Traffic, N321 on base full stop runway 32 Frostbite Falls Traffic"

Nobody here is talking about clipping out the airport name at the end, it's useful I agree, it promotes Safety I agree.

I'm sorry, reading comprehension doesn't appear to be my strong suit this week. Traffic is still superfluous, but I agree in this example, it is not the issue I was addressing. By the way, on my last cross country, I did hear someone repeatedly ending transmissions only with "traffic" and not the airport name.

If you aren't going to stick to Safety, then at least read the thread?

That's unfair as I was addressing a perceived safety issue which I had recently heard. I misunderstood you post, that's all, but it doesn't invalidate my point.

But the question for you is what value do you perceive "traffic" adding to the transmission? The thing about deviating from a best practice is that at some point the deviation can grow into a hazard. I like to think (perhaps naively) that pilots try a little harder than most people to establish best practices as a matter of routine.
 
I'm sorry, reading comprehension doesn't appear to be my strong suit this week. Traffic is still superfluous, but I agree in this example, it is not the issue I was addressing. By the way, on my last cross country, I did hear someone repeatedly ending transmissions only with "traffic" and not the airport name.



That's unfair as I was addressing a perceived safety issue which I had recently heard. I misunderstood you post, that's all, but it doesn't invalidate my point.

But the question for you is what value do you perceive "traffic" adding to the transmission? The thing about deviating from a best practice is that at some point the deviation can grow into a hazard. I like to think (perhaps naively) that pilots try a little harder than most people to establish best practices as a matter of routine.

It is completely fair for me to ask you read, understand, and represent what I am saying if you are going to argue against it. Doing otherwise is known as a 'Straw Man Argument' at best or a plain old Non-Sequitur.

If you read my posts you would know that I used 'traffic' at the end of a written replay of an anecdote solely for the purpose of letting readers know what XXX meant. Seriously look at the OP and understand that it isn't an actual transcription, just like I didn't actually say XXX on the radio.

I get that reading comprehension may be an issue here. For the fourth time, and just for you, I do not use 'traffic' at the end of my CTAF transmissions. I am NOT arguing for the presence or absence of 'Traffic' at the end of the transmission. There are good arguments on either side but none of them have to do with Safety, and it's just very trivial compared to a mid-air. I am trying to raise awareness of FARs, and how some people are using advice in place of the actual rules. Sometimes it's bad advice.


Your Safety concern is that someday there may be a Safety concern? That's actually quite true, about everything. But it's hypothetical. Do you have an extant Safety concern here? Mid-airs happen and sometimes because of a failure to follow right of way. What's your mishap?

Better yet, look at the OP, figure out if your unsafe experience is helpful to the discussion, and if not then start a thread of your own?
 
Last edited:
I stead of "don't be a jerk", how about "be nice to fellow aviators".

I have seen people get violations for taking off opposing inbound traffic. Not that it's common, but Mr. Regulator might just be watching.

Also a fast plane very hard to fit into a pattern full of slow planes. We consider RVs to be fast, but that's nothing compared to jets or turboprops. They often approach at 100-130 kts or more. Be nice to the poor jet pilot trying to squeeze their 120kt approach speed into a 70kt pattern. It may sound like they're being rude, but really they're scared and hoping they don't inconvenience too many others.
 
Last edited:
. . .If 'Traffic' conveys 'no information' then why say it at the beginning?

You still have not identified a Safety Concern. Let me help you out: Without getting ridiculous, describe a scenario where saying 'traffic' at the end of a CTAF transmission led or would lead to a mishap?
Well, I do believe the reference to “‘Traffic’ conveying no information” is in reference to that word used at the END of the transmission. There is indeed information conveyed when it is used at the beginning of the transmission.

As I stated earlier, saying “traffic” at the beginning conveys information as to WHOM (WHO) you are talking. The traffic at XXX airport.

Since the format of the entire transmission has purpose, we should be doing our best to convey clearly, distinctly, and punctually WHO we are talking to, WHO we are, WHERE we are, WHAT our intentions are, and WHERE the conversation is being held.

If clarity of communication is not considered “a safety issue” then what does?
 
I wonder...

I wonder how many folks here actually use the ATC system routinely.

Must not be very many, it would seem, because the system is arguably less rigid than the terminology being argued here...and the arguments are at uncontrolled fields, no less.

Yes, I said uncontrolled...been saying it for more than 40 years, no sense changing now...;)
 
Well, I do believe the reference to “‘Traffic’ conveying no information” is in reference to that word used at the END of the transmission. There is indeed information conveyed when it is used at the beginning of the transmission.

As I stated earlier, saying “traffic” at the beginning conveys information as to WHOM (WHO) you are talking. The traffic at XXX airport.

Since the format of the entire transmission has purpose, we should be doing our best to convey clearly, distinctly, and punctually WHO we are talking to, WHO we are, WHERE we are, WHAT our intentions are, and WHERE the conversation is being held.

If clarity of communication is not considered “a safety issue” then what does?

Clarity of communication is certainly an admirable quality of a best practice in communication. However qualifying as a best practice does not elevate a practice to the realm of Safety. (do you need an example why that is?) If a specific lack of clarity in communication presents a risk that we can reasonably call a hazard, then and there Safety as a process should be invoked.

Here is an example: FAR 91.319(d)(3) You know that one right? Of course we all do because it is the one that tells you to insert 'Experimental' into your call to Ground or Tower rather than just saying 'RV.' Or at least to specifically communicate with Ground or Tower IAW the FAR. So there is a best practice here, a method to deliver that clarity of communication right? Is it a Safety issue? I think that's a hard argument to make.

So how do things in the wide realm of professionalism get into the narrow realm of Safety issues? NASA has System Safety, it's fantastic and WAY beyond the resources for GA. The FAA uses reactive Safety, rules and lessons written in blood. Not a universally accurate description but more accurate than not. So we need to tie a mishap to the specific condition to invoke the GA Safety process or at least clearly anticipate the mishap.

For perhaps the fifth time in this thread: Draw a scenario or point to a mishap where saying 'traffic' at the end of a CTAF transmission is a causal factor? And by causal factor I mean causal factor in the Safety sense not in a personal view sense. (When I hear that second 'traffic' why I get so crazy I just have to punch my co-pilot) If you don't know how events in a chain of events become identified as causal factors then it begs the question why you are using the term Safety.

In short: not everything we can imagine to contribute to Safety is a Safety issue. That kind of thinking undoes the Safety effort even before it begins.

If it helps to understand my views I am a school trained and experienced aircraft accident investigator.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many folks here actually use the ATC system routinely.

Must not be very many, it would seem, because the system is arguably less rigid than the terminology being argued here...and the arguments are at uncontrolled fields, no less.

Yes, I said uncontrolled...been saying it for more than 40 years, no sense changing now...;)

Refreshing!
 
Focus your attention on listening and watching, you don’t have to have a radio much less talk to fly at an uncontrolled field. Most would be better served to turn their radio off…..

Way too many people spend so much focus on talking they can’t see and hear what’s happening, Everyone’s experienced it over and over.

The uncontrolled field (and sometimes controlled) is a wide open dance floor, usually you’re dancing with someone you’ve just met and things are happening fast. Sometimes others invite themselves into the middle of the dance, some are 2-stepping while others are hip-hopping.

Next time you go to a uncontrolled field try just listening and watching and fitting into things without talking.
 
Well, I do believe the reference to “‘Traffic’ conveying no information” is in reference to that word used at the END of the transmission. There is indeed information conveyed when it is used at the beginning of the transmission.

As I stated earlier, saying “traffic” at the beginning conveys information as to WHOM (WHO) you are talking. The traffic at XXX airport.

Since the format of the entire transmission has purpose, we should be doing our best to convey clearly, distinctly, and punctually WHO we are talking to, WHO we are, WHERE we are, WHAT our intentions are, and WHERE the conversation is being held.

If clarity of communication is not considered “a safety issue” then what does?

I could have responded a little more softly. Human here, frustrated with the three pages of questions that have nothing to do with my post.

"If clarity of communication is not considered “a safety issue” then what does?" 'A hazardous lack of clarity of communication' is the shortest answer to your question. So we need to find by mishap or imagining a realistic mishap how adding that last word creates a hazardous lack of communication. Kind of why I kept asking for how it could become a causal factor.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you misread?

Its not always easy to pick up both ends of a radio transmission. In this case, I think it is really thoughtful and much more safe to advise at the beginning of traffic pattern call the airport and then again at the end. I.e. "Double Beagle traffic, N12345 entering left downwind for RWY 28, Double Beagle Traffic. By saying it at the beginning and the end, other listeners are more likely to hear, and know, where you are... In the area I fly in, you will get CTAF transmissions from several different airfields (all on 122.8 and miles apart) and if you didn't catch the front end of the call, you may hear it at the end and will know which airfield if transmitter takes that one last second to identify the field at which they are traffic. Good for airport Traffic Pattern safety.

Sorry to derail the train, but you illustrated something that is like the classic 'fingernails on the chalkboard' for me. It seems to be more and more popular for pilots to end their CTAF self-announce transmissions with the word "traffic".
Per the AIM, it isn't correct, and adds no value. For me, it's worse than the "any traffic in the area please advise" phraseology that gets maligned so often.
Thanks for enabling my rant
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top