I remember flying into an unfamiliar airport once and the pilots on frequency chiding me for not knowing the name of their airfield. Didn’t make sense to me.
I made each callout using the FAA-charted name. When I wondered aloud what the deal was, the FBO manager told me: “That’s not our local procedure.”
Ignorance of local procedure almost led to a midair collision for one multiengine pilot, as he described in his report to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System: “While I was entering the area of Branch County Memorial Airport (KOEB) from the east, I was calling out my position on common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) 122.70. I entered the traffic pattern with the standard 45° entry on downwind for Runway 7.”
The pilot heard other pilots making position reports for “Coldwater traffic” but ignored them, as he knew 122.70 was a frequency used by several airports in that geographic area.
“As I was approaching the 45 and getting ready to turn left base, I saw a Piper at my 8 o’clock making a left turn also toward Branch County airport. I took evasive action and called out the traffic conflict. The pilot rudely informed me he was calling out his position for Coldwater airport.”
On the ground, the reporting pilot announced on the CTAF that the Airport/Facility Directory calls the airport Branch County and not Coldwater.
He wrote that the close call happened because the local pilots were using a name only a local would know.
“I was told on the air that it is called both, except they continued using the non-standard name,” he said.
The Airport/Facility Directory (officially renamed U.S. Chart Supplements as of March 31, 2016) is an FAA-issued reference book designed to aid pilots traveling to unfamiliar airports. The seven regional manuals comprising it list public-use airports, seaplane bases, heliports, military facilities and certain private-use airports requested by the Department of Defense.
The directories include hours of operation and telephone numbers for airports, air traffic control facilities and weather services.
What they don’t contain is the tribal knowledge more commonly known as “local procedure” that only pilots based at or familiar with a given airport know.
Of 348 reports in the ASRS database labeled “near miss,” “close call” or “runway incursion,” 19 pilots blamed their incident on unfamiliarity with “local procedures.”
Ignorance of some local procedures will get you a rude remark on the radio — or the consequences could be more significant.
A corporate jet captain wrote in his NASA report about his conflict with ATC that could have resulted in him losing his license. The incident involved a local procedure ATC decided to use for pilots flying in New York airspace.
“After being vectored off of the JAIKE arrival to KTEB, ATC issued a descent below the floor of the Class B (assigned 2,000 feet in the vicinity of the VANER intersection) and instructed us to maintain a speed of 210 knots. I informed them that we would be below the shelf of the Class B and would be maintaining 200 knots.”
Why 200 knots? Because that is the FAA-mandated maximum airspeed below the shelf of Class B airspace. Why is that? A Class B shelf exists to accommodate typically slower, smaller traffic from satellite airports in the vicinity of much busier, major metropolitan Class B airports. The lower speed limit gives all aircraft better opportunity to see and avoid one another.
As the pilot continued in his report, “I have heard other flight crews mention being instructed to do the same thing when flying in the New York metro area.”
The genesis of the rulemakings that led to the 250- and 200-knot speed restriction in and under Class B airspace actually began in New York airspace. A midair collision in 1960 and another in 1967 over New York City both involved a faster airliner and a slower private airplane. The aftermath brought into existence CFR Part 91.117, the regulation governing aircraft speeds in the National Airspace System.
In preparing for this column, I searched for any written exceptions to CFR Part 91.117. I did find evidence of a test program that took place at Houston International Airport (IAH) that sought to delete the 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet restriction for departures only, and only if authorized by ATC. The phraseology was “no speed limit” or “increase speed to (number) knots” or “delete the 250-knot restriction.” That program was canceled in January 2004.
Right now there is no evidence that any controller in the United States has the authority to authorize speeds above what is regulated.
The pilot complained in his report that “Atlanta TRACON has been known to violate aircraft for exceeding the 200-knot restriction below the Atlanta Class B when arriving/departing satellite airports such as KPDK, KFTY, etc. There should be consistency across the system, not an acceptance and expectation of ‘local procedure.’”
Therein lies the problem with local procedures. They establish precedence for exceptions to the rule. They are the aeronautical equivalent of a colloquialism — an informal, regional way of navigating airspace. A local procedure is a convenient shortcut for inflight operation. But it only works if you know about it and you know how to use it.
A helicopter pilot filed a NASA report after experiencing a NMAC while shooting practice approaches at an unfamiliar airport where he didn’t know the local procedure.
“We were on the VOR 34 into KGKY. We were asked to report the final approach fix (BROUZ) inbound, which we complied with. ATC asked, ‘What are your intentions after the missed?’ I returned with ‘After the missed, we would like to turn to the southwest and hold at BROUZ,’ which is the published missed for that approach. ATC responded with ‘roger.’”
The helicopter pilot continued on the approach. About a half mile from the missed approach point, ATC informed him of traffic departing the opposite runway, Runway 16, and climbing through his altitude. Both helicopter and airplane pilots saw each other and took immediate evasive action.
According to the NASA report, Tower never told the helicopter pilot to break off his approach early.
The helicopter pilot wrote that once ATC realized he had caused a near miss, the controller told the pilot he thought the helicopter was going to turn southwest before the missed approach point. The pilot told ATC his intention had been to fly the approach all the way to the MAP, which was directly over the threshold for Runway 34. That’s when ATC stated that the pilot “must not be familiar with the procedure here, that at Arlington they go missed early.”
Chapter 4-23-1 of the AIM clearly states that a practice instrument approach is an actual instrument approach. That means an aircraft practicing an instrument approach is guaranteed the same separation rights as an aircraft on an actual IFR flight plan.
When ATC used the local procedure instead of the established IFR procedure, two things happened. First, he violated the helicopter pilot’s right to the entire airspace around that airport during the IFR approach. Second, he allowed an airplane to take off directly into the flight path of the helicopter. That’s more than a local procedure. That’s plain loco.
Pilots generally enjoy belonging to the local pilot community. Each pilot community develops its own character and creates its own local vocabulary, shorthand for flying “in the neighborhood,” and a local procedure is born.
Because it works for that local pilot community, it’s deemed acceptable. Over time, it becomes “the way things are done around here.” Unfortunately, to the unknowing, it sounds more like, “It’s not us, it’s you.”
Local procedures are a slippery slope. Local pilots calling Branch County Memorial Airport “Coldwater” on CTAF may seem harmless. After all, Coldwater is the name of the town in Michigan where the airport is located. For pilots who live nearby, calling it Coldwater may be more natural than saying Branch County.
But referring to the airport by its local name rather than its charted name reduces transient traffic situational awareness. It also increases the likelihood of loss of VFR separation and ups the chances of an NMAC.
Plus, tolerating that behavior has the potential to create an atmosphere where it’s OK for, say, a Tower controller to permit simultaneous traffic in the opposite direction in the same airspace. That’s what happened with the helicopter pilot and the Tower controller at KGKY.
The FAA is responsible for “insuring the safe, efficient and secure use of the nation’s airspace.” The A/FD and the AIM are two ways it provides specific examples of operating techniques and procedures that not only may be required by federal regulation or other federal publications, but are designed, via standardization, to keep us safe.
As for the good folks at Branch County, there may be hope. There is a process through which that pilot community might be able to make Coldwater the co-official name of their airport. They could petition the FAA’s Aeronautical Charting Forum.
Can we make an exception for one week a year?!?
“Yellow high-wing, where ya from? (Pilot answers) Great job today, make left turn into the grass, follow the flag man, ….welcome to Wittman Regional” just doesn’t have the same ring to it! 🙂
I am a Rescue Co-ordinator at an RCC. People calling in using “local” and newly-invented names create delays at best and utter confusion at worst. It isn’t so bad if it’s a name that dates back to the old homestead days but when it’s the work of the tourist industry, I find it not only imperious and downright offensive but utterly unworkable. If you want to call yourself a local you should know the traditional names as well as the official names.
And politicians: knock it off with the patronage names.
Very good article, highlighting a problem that needs to be fixed. A similar thing happened to me mid 2015 flying to West Palm Beach, FL to visit my daughter. I planned to base my plane at Palm Beach County Park (KLNA), 6nm South of PBI. When I called PBI approach, gave my location and intention to land at Palm Beach County Park, the controller asked if I was going to Lantana and I said “no, I am inbound for Palm Beach County Park – Lima, November, Alpha”. He replied “that is Lantana”..like I should know that…. after a short pause I came back with “Ok…??, thanks, unfamiliar”. All the CTAF traffic was announcing Lantana, but Lantana is nowhere to be found on charts or pilot reference material, so I have no idea how first time visitors are supposed to know that. I later realized the airport designator LNA must be short for Lantana, so why they didn’t name the airport Lantana, I have no idea, but it is very confusing. I was hearing CTAF announcements for Lantana before I called Approach, but I had no idea that was the airport I was intending to land at until the controller fortunately enlightened me before I got near the area. It was interesting to read of the other places where there is similar confusion. I was very surprised that approach controllers were using the local name and didn’t immediately recognize the official airport name. Confusion like this around busy airspaces and airports should be fixed in the name of safety. There is no excuse for this problem to have existed for so many years…. I guess it will take an accident to get something done about it.
I agree with nearly everyone here, but I really think that the FAA should change a lot of these charted names to reflect reality. Some of these airports have long names that are not compatible with good radio etiquette (i.e. Northwest Florida Beaches International”) and this is often why pilots shorten them. In my own area F45 is named North Palm Beach County Airport. NOBODY calls it that on the air, everybody says “North County”. So why not list “North County” in the AF/D and on the charts? The AF/D could also list the long version for reference, but the shorthand version that everybody uses would be on the charts for all to see.
By the way Steve, KORD is Chicago O’Hare, not Portland International.
Ha! Try Headcorn in the UK. If you are flying a regular GA Piper / Cessna type plane – you call “Headcorn”. But if you are flying in a Warbird you call it “Lasheden” – its WWII name. And the ATC hut on the ground goes along with it!!
But there is a real anomaly in the whole mess. Try the Class C KPVD. In the chart supplement it’s “Theodore Francis Green State Airport” but folks call “Providence Approach” and “Providence Tower”. Brevity on the radio trumps the politician renamed airport. And honestly I can’t tell you the number of small airports in the chart Supplement where this happens. I call what’s printed and remain on a trigger to possible alternatives based on the locale or name of the adjacent town. That one I call “it is what it is”.
What REALLY ticks me off are the IFR pilots on VFR days – whether flying a real approach – or a far more common practice approach. A CTAF call announcing you are “At SMARII inbound” is completely meaningless to most VFR pilots and for sure to a newly minted PPL who has just got their head around trying to be safe in the pattern. VFR pilots need “Newport Traffic – N1234 on a practice IFR approach – 6 mile final for Rwy 22, Newport Traffic”. Sure it is a little longer on the radio – but it is unambiguous and clear.
As a former ATCer, I fully agree with what gbigs says:
“The name of ANY airport is the one in the AF/D. Any local that does not use that name is wrong. Airports do not belong to those that have a hangar on the field or live down the street from it. Airports belong to ALL aviators who may land on the field.”
All locals should use the airport names as published in the AF/D. This will not only keep them safe, but will also keep all “non-locals” safe as well.
Itinerant pilots flying over shouldn’t have to look up every name of every airport along their route of flight. It’s much simpler to call the airport by the associate city, then add the airport name if there is more than one airport associated with that city. Pilots usually are familiar with geography. City names are printed on the chart. I know where “Coldwater” is, but “Branch County” isn’t identified on the chart.
P.S. the A/FD is “Chart Supplement” now.
The standard for making local procedures should be that they compatible with standard procedures and not illegal. Anything else is nutty.
I have reported this same problem myself. On my flight from New York to Colorado to Florida and back, I ran into numerous airports where not only the local pilots, but the ATC as well, were using a different name than the one on the chart. The one which stands out for me is Yankton, SD. The chart calls it “Gurney Municipal”, and so did I as I approached, landed, and took off. When I took off I called the ATC I’d been talking to earlier and requested flight following. They asked where I was, and I said “just leaving Gurney Municipal”. They had never heard of it, so I gave them the identifier. They said, “you mean Yankton – why didn’t you say so?”.
This happened to me on one of my first solo cross country flights. I was flying into KFEP (Albertus) and calling it that on CTAF as I entered the pattern an landed. As I departed to head back to my home airport, another aircraft was making position announcements for landing at Freeport. Luckily I knew this airport is in Freeport and is the only airport there. This is very confusing for a student pilot and if it was busy, it could have ended in a bad way.
kid’s….it’s amazing how the more things change, they remain the same.
I remember these SAME problems 50+ years ago as a fresh pilot flying into & out of CLE..
We had “local” reporting slang for position reporting that only the locals knew.
The good thing back then, the locals would recognize a visitor on frequency reporting his position & use a extra caution watching for them.
Seems like today’s commercial or private pilots have a bit of a chip on their shoulders, the other guy is always wrong.
Back then, I remember flying IFR into & out of small airports with poor radio coverage & the commercials flying at altitude would help out with radio relaying to ATC for us. Different times……different pilots…..different society…
I think this is just insanity. There’s no real value in publishing a Chart Supplement if local pilots are just going to establish local, unpublished, arbitrary rules for pattern entry, place names, and reporting points. These things are crucial for safety and must be published for everyone to use, or nobody is safe.
If you see something like this near you, please report it to your nearest FAASafety Team Representative. We’ll be happy to help you report the charting defect and get it fixed so that others don’t stumble into the same pit.
The article states “The genesis of the rulemakings that led to the 250- and 200-knot speed restriction in and under Class B airspace actually began in New York airspace. A midair collision in 1960 and another in 1967 over New York City both involved a faster airliner and a slower private airplane. The aftermath brought into existence CFR Part 91.117, the regulation governing aircraft speeds in the National Airspace System.The genesis of the rulemakings that led to the 250- and 200-knot speed restriction in and under Class B airspace actually began in New York airspace. A midair collision in 1960 and another in 1967 over New York City both involved a faster airliner and a slower private airplane. The aftermath brought into existence CFR Part 91.117, the regulation governing aircraft speeds in the National Airspace System.”
In fact there are no such mid-air collisions between commercial and private aircraft on record for 1960 or 1967. The actual collisions in the US during the 60s were…
12/16/60 … A UAL DC-8 and TWA L-1049 Super Connie collided over NYC. (2 commercial flights)
12/4/65 … An Eastern Super Connie collided with a TWA B707 over Carmel, NY. (2 commercial flights)
3/9/67 … A TWA DC-9 collided with a Beechcraft Baron near Urbana. OH.
7/19/67 … A Piedmont B727 collided with a Cessna 310 near Hendersonville, NC.
9/9/69 … An Allegheny DC-9 collided with a Piper Cherokee near Fairland, IN.
I don’t know what the true genesis of CFR Part 91.117 was, but it wasn’t what was described in this article.
Thanks for the comment. I will find the research I did on the article and provide it to you shortly.
Speaking of local procedures, one of my big problems with going to unfamiliar fields is the locals’ use of the term “practice area.” I remember approaching KFDK many years ago at 2500′ and hearing, “Nxxyy in the practice area at 2500.” I had no idea where this was, and tried to get clarification. No one responded (this was before KFDK was a towered field).
Even at my local airport, I always make it a habit of saying, “in the practice area 6 miles NE of the field.” I wish others would do the same.
Excellent comment. Adopting the procedure you described would no doubt enhance SA at practice areas near airfields nationwide. Thank you for sharing.
Hopefully ATC ‘procedures’ that are clearly “loco” get the controller in question as well as the facility director, some face time with the local FSDO.
As far as the Houston experiment, it worked fine. As a wide body driver flying over the Atlantic, we get ‘high speed approved’ I.e. more than 250 below 10,000 probably 70% of the time. It works fine, even with some aircraft not requesting it and remaining at 250. Just takes more planning and effort on ATCs part, I’d imagine.
i learned at an airfield that had local names for reporting positions. I wondered even as a student how pilots arriving from out of town would know what “the stack” meant. But this name thing is even worse, and the comments nailed it. If politicians want to name an airport after a local deceased war hero that’s fine, but the FAA needs to respect and preserve “working” names for airfields–especially when there is no control tower.
There was an article some time ago that announcements on CTAF would generally use the airports associated city or county name. Two examples would be Howell and Bellaire MI. I have heard Howell reported as “Howell traffic” or “Livingston County traffic.” The same would be said about Bellaire being reported as “Bellaire” or Antrim County.”
One other airport I know of having an alternative name would be Holland MI. It has been that proper name over the air is supposed to be “West Michigan Regional”
In all honesty, both pilots should have been able to connect the dots as to which airport they were flying at. Pilot One should have know the airport was in Coldwater, while Pilot Two should had known the full airport name.
A retired Air Traffic Controller contacted me to say that Letters to Airmen may have local procedures spelled out in them. I’m doing that research and will reply once I have more data. Thanks for your comment!
It would also help if the A/FD used more than 4 words to explain a procedure. Years ago I had an moment where I was “that guy”. I hate “that guy”, I really don’t want to be “that guy”.
I was visiting a now closed airfield for a fly-in. The A/FD said something like “Pattern entry from NE”. The runway was situated roughly East / West. It was just north of the river and just North of Portland International (KORD), with a Class C cutout around it and a pretty low floor above it.
The pattern was flown to the south of the runway. As I approached from the NE, trying to figure out how to get across the field to enter on a 45 on the south side. The only thing I could figure was to cross at mid-field slightly above traffic pattern altitude and then drop down on the other side and enter a 45.
Well, long story short (too late), what they really meant was to “enter from the NE, fly an upwind north of the runway, turn crosswind right over the west end numbers and then turn down wind.” Had that been what was in the A/FD I wouldn’t have been “that guy” on that day.
I always try to research new airports and listen closely to what others are doing. I don’t want to be “that guy” again.
Great comment! Thanks for sharing your tale of woe.
It is common for politicians to want to rename airports for all sorts of reasons that lead to new published names. It is only natural for pilots who have flown there for decades to keep using the name the field was created with and damn the politicians. Who actually calls Washington National by the long winded “Reagan” name that the politicians named up for it? A local example is who would call the Panama City, FL tower by its published name “Northwest Florida Beaches International”. And if you are wondering if they could just fall back to the original name the municipal airport was moved to get more room for expansion so it has no legacy name and the original airport closed. I have not been over that way but I am guessing they just call it “Panama City Tower”, etc… and leave off the tourism promotional.
This is a more benign example of local variation but you can see where the problem comes from.
Agreed but local procedures known only to locals cannot be a substitute for what is clearly printed in the controlling documents for a public use airport for precisely the reason given in this article, i.e. it leads to confusion and confusion can lead to disaster. If a local name is more convenient and makes more sense then as this article clearly notes, the locals should petition to have that name added as the primary name used during communications on the CTAF or ATC frequencies. Don’t sit back and whine among yourselves about the problem. Take action and fix it.
The name of ANY airport is the one in the AF/D. Any local that does not use that name is wrong. Airports do not belong to those that have a hangar on the field or live down the street from it. Airports belong to ALL aviators who may land on the field.
It has been a few months since the new name Chart Supplement has been the standard name for the document containing local procedures for airfields. I know the A/FD was used for years, but we need to start using the correct name to prevent confusion and assist those pilots flying around Branch County Airport with the correct name for their airfield next to Clearwater, MI.
Hear hear. I promise forthwith to use only Chart Supplement going forward. Actually, I might slip and call it Chart Supp from time to time…
Hahahahaha! Excellent!