Jamie

Jamie

Well Known Member
Radio Call - The absurdity of using "experimental" on CTAF/uncontrolled airport

First of all, I can find absolutely no requirement anywhere that we identify ourselves as an experimental on CTAF at a non-towered field. If someone has a differing opinion I'm all ears.

My oplims state:

"The pilot in command of this aircraft shall notify air traffic control of the experimental nature of this aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operational control tower. When filing IFR, the experimental nature of this aircraft shall be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."

This past weekend I witnessed this absurdity first-hand as I was running over to the pancake breakfast at Rome, GA. I was inbound and there were three other experimentals in the pattern or inbound. I identified myself as "RV". One of the experimentals was doing touch-n-gos. I heard the touch-n-go aircraft call upwind as I was about to enter a tight downwind. I was looking for him and saw him turning right toward me. It was an L-39. One of the other experimentals was an RV and the remaining one was something that I hadn't seen before, but it was probably LSA-eligible.

The point is, there were three airplanes in the pattern calling themselves an experimental, but that didn't give anyone any clue as to which was which and all three had vastly different performance capabilities. Had I known the experimental doing touch-n-goes was an L-39, I would have slowed down to let him enter downwind before I made my downwind.

Yes, I know that the "experimental" identifier is a badge of honor, but it simply doesn't make any sense at a non-towered field and is not required.
 
Amen!

Jamie said:
... it simply doesn't make any sense at a non-towered field and is not required.
Click to expand...
I've been preaching this about as long as Paul Dye has been preaching about "Conditional Inspections." I haven't seen any progress on either front.
 
I make a call, airport name, rv7, 6 miles out to the west, airport name

I figure if it gets real busy I would go with white rv7... people need to know the airplane type for how fast you might be doing, the color for identification. tail no. means absolutely nothing, unless there is somebody that wants to cause trouble, and we have talked about that one before.

Ident is what you need to be concerned with. Just like when we go to an airshow and multiple airplanes, color and type is the key.
 
I agree -

I find myself falling into using Expirimental 1) because everybody else does and 2) because I don't know what else to use.

I'll try to switch to RV...8DR.

See, Larry - it is working! :D
 
I agree 100%.

It drives me crazy when someone just gives their N-number and a position report. It makes it impossible to tell what I should be looking for. Maybe the N-number came from a Piper and I only see a 172 in the pattern.

It can be a dangerous place out there.
 
I sooo much prefer to hear "red and white Citabria on left base", "blue and white RV on left downwind, #2" as opposed to "Cessna 14TC on base". N number callouts are fine for controllers, but don't do much for me. I need to see and identify.
 
I've been looking for the FAR/AIM/AC reference, but can't find it. Maybe someone else will chime in, but I believe n-numbers are supposed to be used per the regs.
 
Jamie said:
I've been looking for the FAR/AIM/AC reference, but can't find it. Maybe someone else will chime in, but I believe n-numbers are supposed to be used per the regs.
Click to expand...

I guess they will just have to come and get me. Hay, we don't even have to do the radio thing.
 
I use experimental when we are in a gaggle but RV when I'm by myself.

Rome was interesting Saturday morning. I think I used "yellow experimental" once because I wanted the only guy around to look at me. He was about to cross the active runway as I was waiting to take-off.

I had the same thing happen Sunday at Cartersville. There were 2 experimentals (1 RV and 1 ultralight) and 2 "cessnas" in the pattern. Had I known what either one of them was I would have changed speed in order to get in.

I'm guessing the other RV in the pattern had a few choice words for the Cessna using 19 while we were using 01. They came within a few hundred feet as the RV-4 was on upwind after his touch-n-go.
 
That is probably...

Jamie said:
I've been looking for the FAR/AIM/AC reference, but can't find it. Maybe someone else will chime in, but I believe n-numbers are supposed to be used per the regs.
Click to expand...

...an FCC issue...:)

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/47cfr87.107.htm

(a) Aircraft station. Identify by one of the following means:
(1) Aircraft radio station call sign.
(2) The type of aircraft followed by the characters of the
registration marking (``N'' number) of the aircraft, omitting the prefix
letter ``N.'' When communication is initiated by a ground station, an
aircraft station may use the type of aircraft followed by the last three
characters of the registration marking.......

"RV-7 99AB" is OK by the above, as is "Blue/White RV-7 99AB"...:)

...but what the heck, no-one reads the FCC rules anyway...:D
 
I think if things are going smoothly and people know what you are doing and where you are... than I don't think anybody is going to go after you.

If you are going to use a bunch of good budies and 10-4 and stuff like that, than maybe...

fly the plane and communicate, I'm sure we all know how to do that... I think
 
if you really want to cringe...

"Blah Blah Unicom, Experimental 24X, winds and actve please, any traffic in the area please advise..."

I've got a friend who always replies to those requests, and the reply is usually not taken well. :D
 
While doing turns around the pattern one day, a "Cessna" called in a few miles out. I start looking for a 150/170/172/180/182/190/195/210 looking thing somewhere on the 45 entry. Turned out to be a #@#$% Cessna Citation! Just a bit faster target than what I had in mind.

I'm planning on using "RV xxxxx".
 
"Experimental 710 Bravo Juliet"

It is an RV-6A and it flies final at 85 kts if you are starting a data base. I don't intent to change unless the FAA tells me to.

Bob Axsom
 
Only when talking to tower?? (but not app/ctr)


(28) The pilot in command of this aircraft must notify air traffic control of the experimental nature of this aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operational control tower. When filing instrument flight rules (IFR), the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan.
 
Bob Axsom said:
It is an RV-6A and it flies final at 85 kts if you are starting a data base. I don't intent to change unless the FAA tells me to.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...
Well the FAA does say something about it, they want the type.

"3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model is stated, the prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha.

EXAMPLE-
1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf.

2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit "Experimental" after initial contact).

4. Air Taxi or other commercial operators not having FAA authorized call signs should prefix their normal identification with the phonetic word "Tango." "

AIM 4-2-1

Of course experimentals are required to note that on the initial call to a tower. The reason being, well the reason seems to be because that is the way it has always been done.
 
n5lp said:
"3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model is stated, the prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha.
Click to expand...

Should? Not Shall?

This comes from the AIM and not the FAR's....words have specific meanings and requirements. "Should" carries zero enforcement penalty, whereas "Shall" does.
 
It drives me nuts when pilots just use experimental instead of adding on the plane type or using just the plane type. I could care or less about your tail number because we aren't getting close enough for me to ID you anyways.

The whole point about using position reports is so others know where to look out for you and have some idea of your performance. A Cirrus flys a very fast pattern. A Velocity has a very high landing speed compared to a Cessna. Even the Cessna clan needs to be more specific such as Skyhawk, Cardinal, etc.

For me, it's just "RV". If there is more than one of us it is either flight of "x" RV's or RV4XX. Very simple and easy for any other pilot to know what is going on.

Oh....and that is even in the DC SFRA. It's still an uncontrolled field.

As to ATC, Potomac Approach is so busy handling SFRA traffic they don't have the time or patience to hear long calls with "Experimental RV NXXXXX". They've got my flight plan in front of them and already know what type of aircraft I am. My call sign is all they want and all they get. If they have a question they'll ask....but never have.
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
Should? Not Shall?

This comes from the AIM and not the FAR's....words have specific meanings and requirements. "Should" carries zero enforcement penalty, whereas "Shall" does.
Click to expand...
The AIM may not be regulatory although it is often treated that way in court.

What I can't understand is why anyone would want to argue against using the type. It is very helpful to others and not painful or expensive, at all. To me it is like the majority of drivers (where I live) that refuse to use turn signals while driving. Again it is helpful to others and not too difficult. Just a flick of the finger.
 
Last edited:
Bob Axsom said:
It is an RV-6A and it flies final at 85 kts if you are starting a data base. I don't intent to change unless the FAA tells me to.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...
Even in the face of overwhelming common sense reasoning of why you should? I don't know quite how to respond.

Excellent thread, and also one of my personal crusades.
 
But the FCC link...

n5lp said:
The AIM may not be regulatory although it is often treated that way in court.

What I can't understand is why anyone would want to argue against using the type. It is very helpful to others and not painful or expensive, at all. To me it is like the majority of drivers (where I live) that refuse to use turn signals while driving. Again it is helpful to others and not too difficult. Just a flick of the finger.
Click to expand...

...I posted previously IS regulatory...

...and it does agree with your comments - it says "type" + "number"

When we use that microphone we come under FCC rules as well as the FAA ones...:)

In general, the FCC does not like radio calls without an identification...:rolleyes:
 
RV?

Everybody has pet peeves when it comes to talking on the radio and this recurring topic is no exception. Just because you and I speak "RV" does not mean everybody else does too. This happens to be a very big country and profound cultural differences exist from region to region. Hence, standardized radio calls are not only prudent but is the only realistic way pilots (who are supposed to be adhering to a common set of rules) can be expected to "be on the same page." I hate to burst bubbles but just because you and I built and now fly an RV does not mean that everybody in the entire aviation community happens to know what an RV is! Not everybody reads "Kitplanes" or monitors VAF. The EAA is big, but not that big. Hello. When I moved my first project out to my small airport a few short years ago, most local pilots based there, many of which are active or retired airline pilots were only dimly aware of "experimental" aviation and most never even heard of an RV. Fact is, I didn't know what an RV was until I finally decided to build an airplane and started looking around for a suitable project. Just a few months ago I applied for another repairmans certificate. The FAA employee at the STL FSDO I worked with had no idea what an RV is. My point is you and I are sharing the sky with lots and lots of pilots who will never range very far from the familiar world of certificated aircraft. Certainly, to some extent that dynamic is changing thanks in part to the democratization of homebuilding that advanced kits and match hole drilling have made possible. Not too long ago, homebuilding occupied a tiny niche in general aviation. Today, anybody with a modicum of skill and access to ready cash can be a rock star. I occasionally land at airports and people approach to ask..."What is it?" What might be taken as common knowledge in California or Oregon or Texas can render pilots in other states with little to no RV presence.....clueless. Upon inital radio contact, I always state EXPERIMENTAL....now thats a word we can all understand or at least we all are supposed to.
 
Last edited:
Try filing out an on line flight plan. HXB used to work but not now. Now I put in RV7 and it works.

I called LEX clearance delivery and used "experimental" and he didn't care about that. He wanted type. RV7/G again.

Atlanta ATC asked me the other day what type of experimental. RV7 again.

On my last two cross countries, I used RV-32WW and had absolutely no problem or questions. The only thing I did was to slow down saying RV the first time. Every single controller came back with RV32WW and everybody was happy.

Bottom line on this is they have a need to know what to expect on speed and capabilities. Plain old vanilla "experimental" just doesn't seem to cut it now.
 
n5lp said:
The AIM may not be regulatory although it is often treated that way in court.

What I can't understand is why anyone would want to argue against using the type. It is very helpful to others and not painful or expensive, at all. To me it is like the majority of drivers (where I live) that refuse to use turn signals while driving. Again it is helpful to others and not too difficult. Just a flick of the finger.
Click to expand...

who's finger???
 
az_gila said:
...I posted previously IS regulatory...

...and it does agree with your comments - it says "type" + "number"

When we use that microphone we come under FCC rules as well as the FAA ones...:)

In general, the FCC does not like radio calls without an identification...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

so when we fly into an airshow like OSH, we are all busted.
 
the only time type really matters is when about 10miles out, myself, I'm still at 180mph. In the pattern I'm down to 100kts or slower, like 80kts. Heck, I do that with my kitfox.
 
Webb said:
Try filing out an on line flight plan. HXB used to work but not now. Now I put in RV7 and it works.

I called LEX clearance delivery and used "experimental" and he didn't care about that. He wanted type. RV7/G again.

Atlanta ATC asked me the other day what type of experimental. RV7 again.

On my last two cross countries, I used RV-32WW and had absolutely no problem or questions. The only thing I did was to slow down saying RV the first time. Every single controller came back with RV32WW and everybody was happy.

Bottom line on this is they have a need to know what to expect on speed and capabilities. Plain old vanilla "experimental" just doesn't seem to cut it now.
Click to expand...

I agree, I flew into spokane international, class c, and told them experimental, they wanted to know the type, I came back with rv7, they started calling me rv287rv after that.
 
So, will a RV-12 built E-LSA, not E-AB, still have to state experimental on first contact with Tower/ATC?

--Bill
 
By stating you are an RV are we not also stating the experimantal nature of the aircraft? All RVs are experimental. At my towered airport (Paine Field) I switched from "Experimental" to "RV" because there are so many different experimentals here. The Tower has never complained once. I have even heard some big Boeing aircraft on test flights calling themselves "experimental", but I can not remember if they further clarify as "experimental 747 heavy" or something.
 
Last edited:
Don't mess with the FCC

I have to agree with AZ_GILA. There are many times that the FAA will overlook a rule or two, but the FCC can and will shut you down. There were two instances at our local airport of chronic noise complainers who called everyday, got in the face (literally) of the airport manager, etc, and no one could do anything about it. They both decided to pick up radios and start yelling at airplanes overhead on the CTAF. The FCC brought them up on charges. No more radio calls, no more complaints, etc, dead silence!

Use RV instead of experimental, add a color if you like, but do identify yourself by your N number.


D. Dalton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.