Dave, a reader from Montana, writes: Public “uncontrolled airports” are just that: Uncontrolled and basically dangerous (most mid-airs have happened near uncontrolled airports). The ONLY FAA law one must follow, mandated by the FAA via Congress, is that all turns are to be to the left. NO altitude law, NO radio requirement law, and do-your-own-thing is perfectly legal (except the left turn law). Dangerous, yes. Stupid, yes. Then why isn’t it fixed? Because Congress is the only one that can pass the laws to fix it, and they are influenced by anyone and everyone with clout and/or money. That leaves most GA pilots without a “say.”
You’re right that ye ol’ left turn is regulatory. It’s in §91.126 of the artist formally known as the FARs, now called 14 CFR fill-in-the-blank.
But it’s not correct to say that it’s the only one. Other “laws” also apply to the wild, wild west of non-towered fields. Most notable are the right of way rules and the prohibition in §91.113 against cutting to the front of the line just ‘cause you’re lower.
Plus, we have an Advisory Circular, AC-90-66B, Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations that gives us 13 pages of quasi-regulatory info, along with three appendixes.
True, ACs aren’t laws, being neither technically binding nor regulatory, but they do have what lawyers call the de facto effect of regulation, and pilots brashly ignoring them can — and have — found themselves victims of the dreaded “certificate action.”
As a complete side note, this stupid AC completely ruined my landings. Prior to the Bravo version of this Circular in 2018, traffic patterns west of the Mississippi tended to be at 800 feet AGL, and patterns east of the Mississippi tended to be at 1,000 feet. Being a westerner, I spent the better part of 30 years landing from 800 feet, and if I say so myself, was pretty darn good at it. But this AC established a new nationwide standard traffic pattern altitude of 1K, so we sort of have an altitude “law” now. I’ve been doing my best to adapt, but I’m finding that flaring at 200 feet AGL is really alarming to my passengers, and has been hard on Race 53’s landing gear.
Of course, you correctly point out that there’s no radio law. While that’s true, it’s not unique to non-towered fields. You can fly NORDO into any airport, non-towered or towered. There are procedures in place for this, and if there are any statistics that show airplanes without radios are involved in more accidents than airplanes with radios, I’m not aware of them.
Still, what about midairs and uncontrolled fields? Do most midairs really happen near non-towered airports?
While there’s plenty of hand-wringing in the aviation press about the dangers of midair collisions at uncontrolled airports, what does the data show? Not much, sadly.
Research by Fabrice Kunzi and R. John Hansman of MIT, published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, looked at a decade’s worth of midairs and near-midairs and found that 59% of collisions and 64% of near misses were in the airport environment (with the lion’s share in the traffic pattern). But, sadly, their research didn’t indicate the type of airports those accidents and incidents occurred in.
Neither could I find a breakdown of collisions by airspace in similar earlier research by C. Craig Morris published in Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, nor in the Joseph Nall data, NTSB data, FAA data, or Bureau of Transportation statistics.
I’m not saying it’s not true, I’m just saying I can’t find definitive data on the subject. I, for one, would love to know what percentage of midairs happened in controlled vs uncontrolled airport airspace.
At least we can be certain that midairs are exceedingly rare as accidents go. Kunzi and Hansman identified only 112 between January of 2000 and June of 2010, which works out to roughly a dozen a year, making them less than 1% of accidents for the time period. That said, as they have a 38% fatality rate, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in one.
But just for the sake of argument, would more law be the solution to the problem, assuming the problem exists?
Before we dig into that, I first feel the need to address the mechanics of the FAA regulations. While Congress can — and sometimes does — force the FAA into action (BasicMed comes to mind), the agency has the power to set regulations on its own, without direct congressional approval, under the Administrative Procedure Act. (Technically, in this case, Congress has delegated rulemaking authority to the FAA, as it does to many federal agencies). For regs enthusiasts, this power is set out in 14 CFR §11.
So it’s really not accurate to say that only Congress can pass laws to fix aviation safety problems. But that completely aside, I want to respond to your comment that Congress only responds to “anyone and everyone with clout and/or money,” and that we don’t have a say.
It sure seems that way a lot of the time, I’ll grant you that. But I don’t find that it’s true in aviation.
In aviation, the people with clout and money are the airlines and if they had their way, they would own the sky like they do in most other countries, and the only flying we’d be doing is in the back of the cattle car with a lukewarm soda pop.
Almost uniquely in the world, GA pilots in our country do have a say, although I guess you could make an argument that it’s largely due to our collective support of our own money and advocacy organizations, like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the Experimental Aircraft Association. Time to renew your dues, people.
Now, while I’m not sure I agree with you that this is a problem in need of a fix, and the logistics of law and Congress aside, what fix would you propose? What kind of rules, regs, and laws would you add to non-towered field operations? How would they be enforced? And would that really make the skies safer?
Or would you add 20,000 control towers to the national airspace system, making every airport controlled? How would such a thing be paid for?
I can answer that: It would be paid for by user fees. Huge user fees. And would that really make the skies safer? It sure would, because none of us would be able to afford to fly!
Still, going with your thesis for the moment that most GA pilots don’t have a say in the non-towered airport operational rules, do you believe that the majority of GA pilots would choose to have more laws or ATC at all airports? I don’t believe that’s true, but I could be wrong. Readers: Chime in to have your say.
Just speaking for myself, I’m perfectly happy with §91.113’s see and avoid. I think it’s a pretty smart balance between competing interests. I have access to an amazing number of places that I can fly to, the red tape isn’t cutting into my useful load overly much, and I’m not paying more to land than I paid for fuel to fly.
And while it could well be true that the airspace at uncontrolled fields is not as safe as controlled airspace, it certainly isn’t an aerial version of Death Race 2000.
William E. Dubois is a Master Ground Instructor accredited by both NAFI and Master Instructors, a two-time National Champion Air Racer, and flies out of an uncontrolled public use field.
Flying is great fun and with full of surprises too for all time ‘happy go lucky’ types. Ground school and flight training teaching you discipline and there is much more to learn from incidents and accidents that have happened earlier. We as pilots learn much more from experienced pilots and instructors. That is, if we are serious about learning.
In Canada, there are uncontrolled airports everywhere. Some are busy. Some are not. A procedure is always established for joining circuits or for departures. UNICOM frequency at most places is 122.8.
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate…if done correctly, flying into uncontrolled airports with maybe a FSS is great fun. If we want retain the fun part, let us follow the laid out rules.
Here’s an example in which the use of radio at a non-towered airport both caused a potential problem and ultimately prevented an accident. About 4-5 years ago, I was taxiing out to 21 at Durango, CO, when I heard a Citation announce that he was “about 20 miles southeast of the airport” inbound for 21. Figuring in my head that 20 miles out was about 6 or 7 minutes at Citation speeds, upon completing my run up, I switched frequencies, called for my clearance, then switched back to CTAF. 4-5 minutes had elapsed since I heard the Citation announcement. I looked for the Citation, anticipating that he should be on downwind, but I didn’t see him. I glanced toward base and final, but I still didn’t see any airplane. I announced that I was departing 21 and started to taxi forward. “Sir, we’re on short final!” I stopped abruptly, right at the hold short line, just as the Citation landed in front of me.
Some lessons (never too old or experienced to learn):
>Just because the other airplane is a high performance airplane doesn’t mean its pilots know where they are or are following the rules. If the Citation had been 20 miles out, at 180 to 200 knots, it should have taken 6-7 minutes to arrive at the pattern. But if they were rocketing along at 250-300 knots instead as they descended, they would only take 4-5 minutes. Or if they were at 180-200 knots, but were much closer than 20 miles, like 15 miles, they would only take 4-5 minutes. So instead of assuming that I knew where they should be, I should have asked: “Citation approaching Durango, say position please”.
>After leaving a frequency, after returning to it, listen long enough to acquire situational awareness. If I had done so, I might have heard if the Citation had announced turning final.
>I have two radios—if I’d used one to contact ATC for my clearance and left the other one on CTAF, I could have heard any position announcements from the Citation.
>But most important, instead of just glancing toward base and final, I should have really looked. I don’t know if the Citation had its landing lights on—by the time I saw it, it was past me, and although it wasn’t showing landing lights as it taxied back toward the FBO, they could have been turned off upon leaving the runway. But I still should have seen it.
What do I do different as a result? I use both radios if I have to leave CTAF, one to communicate, the other to listen to CTAF. When I see another airplane waiting to take off and I’m on final, I’m more spring loaded to go around if it starts to move, and I add another position announcement when I’m on short final. I always run my PulseLights as I’m approaching and in the pattern. I don’t assume that I know where another airplane is, just because that’s where it should be if the pilot has made a position announcement. And I don’t hesitate to ask the position of another aircraft if I can’t locate it when there’s a potential conflict.
But honestly, it’s no different at a towered airport. The watchful eyes of ATC are an aid, not a substitute, for situational awareness of other traffic.
Every plane should be required to have at least a handheld radio onboard. Even with their limitations, it would add an inexpensive step towards everyone knowing what’s going on in the pattern at non-towerd airports. Everyone who flies a radioless airplane should be able to afford a $200-$300 handheld for their own safety and the safety of others.
Everyone who flies should be able to look out the window, watch for traffic, and follow the published rules on which they were tested before they ever received a license – and for free. The problem comes when pilots fail to do this basic task, so what in the world would make anyone think they would talk on the radio or even give accurate position information?
I once owned an NRDO ’46 Funk B that held a total of 10 gallons of fuel. Even at $5 / gallon, that handheld would have set me back 6 loads of fuel, and even if I had a radio I still would have been required to look out the window.
Of course that was 40 years ago when everyone was looking outside instead of watching the pretty panel displays. See-and-avoid is a very basic concept and works very well, even continuing today when there is much lower airspace utilization than there was back then.
Let’s encourage folks to be better pilots, not go buy more gadgets.
Huh! Funny, my Cherokee doesn’t have a window looking out the bottom, nor do Cubs and Cessna’s have one on top looking up. Now, those kind of windows would have been WONDERFUL, on a particular near disaster on final. Thanks to a Piper driver waiting on takeoff (with a radio!) Three lives and thousands of dollars of hardware were spared that day. Not to mention the grief for the families. No one on this blog or chain will ever convince me, that this lackadaisical attitude of just do what you want, and don’t talk to anybody will work forever, as long as we just look around, all will be just fine. Statistics and experiences prove otherwise. And the people who think so, scare me the worst!
…so the Piper driver with the radio waiting to take off failed to look around and see the traffic, at an uncontrolled field? And the answer is to force others to make up for his or her faults?
No, a Cub Driver was right under me, as we were both on final. I couldn’t “see and avoid” and neither could he. He ducked in under me, and since he decided to operate NORDO, he though he was the only one most important in the pattern. I was announcing my intentions and locations, but he must have decided a tank of gas was more important than a radio. The Piper waiting to take off, saw what was happening, got on his (radio) and urgently proclaimed, “Cherokee, PULL UP!! PULL UP!!! That guy save all three of our lives, and our airplanes.
Ok, didn’t understand the original scenario, but congrats to both you and the folks waiting to take off. I’m still trying to figure out how this happened if both aircraft are practicing see-and-avoid as required. When this happened to me, I saw the Bonanza roll in on final from a short right base at my 3:00 (airport used left traffic). I thought he might actually look out his window and see me about 20 meters away, but he didn’t and never knew I was there until he heard me advance power and go around. Talking to him later he admitted he was only looking at the end of the runway, he forgot about the standard traffic pattern, and he normally operated out of controlled fields where the tower handled spacing. I found it interesting that both of us had full IFR birds, and there was lots of traffic on unicom, but he wasn’t. A good thing no one was hurt in either of our cases. I suspect mine was a pretty typical scenario – radio equipped aircraft at uncontrolled field but used to someone else calling out traffic or provide separation for him. I’m sure he’s using a bit more see-and-avoid since then. I just don’t believe that forcing everyone to own a radio is the answer. Wouldn’t it be better to counsel and provide remedial training to those who “forget”? In my case, the violator had a radio, but wasn’t using it, and wasn’t practicing see-and-avoid. Maybe I should have written him up for a recurrent ride?
That’s it. As tech dependent as many have become, still more of us can still use paper charts, E6Bs and, yes, even look out the window to “see and avoid”.
I’m afraid Dave from Montana may be a victim of the public school system. If they would teach history he may have learned of the tens of thousands of pilots during World War II that learned to fly at uncontrolled fields or a tower with only a light gun. No radio, no problem. And the military with rules for everything still had midair. You can’t regulate the world into a perfect, accident free utopia.
The two closes near death experience, a.k.a., midairs, I’ve had both occurred at Van Nuys, a VERY controlled airport.
Looks like I’ve saturated the discussion below with multiple entries of the same comment(s). It’s a long story. My apologies…(although I am passionate about the subject…)
I agree we don’t need more Big Brother breathing down our necks, but ALL airports except for Private, needs to have a radio requirement. After a close mid air on final with a Cub driver playing around not caring who was in the pattern, and NORDO, nothing else convinces me more that all airplanes should be required to have a working radio. There isn’t ANYONE that will convince me that even a portable is beyond the capabilities of ANY pilot or aircraft operator. With the technology and cost improvements, even a hobbyist can afford a really nice radio. If we are so concerned with safety, why isn’t this on the list? Why have any rules at all? “The traffic pattern is, You’re on your own” No, we don’t do that because it isn’t safe or expedient. The same holds true to communications. ESPECIALLY at non towered.
Sorry Jim, I disagree, if the premise is that radios make things safer. Until pilots more accurately state their positions, position reporting by radio won’t make a bit of difference. As long as the existing pattern rules are followed, with or without radios, things will work out just fine. But announcing an erroneous position detracts from safety—and from my observation, that’s more common than not.
That being said, of course I use my radio, every time, and I try to be accurate when I do it. But when I hear another pilot reporting position, I keep a careful watch for him/her, not only where he/she said he/she is, but also anywhere else in the pattern, as well as outside what I consider a “normal” pattern. As the saying goes, fly the airplane, not the radio. Or as we were all taught, aviate, navigate, communicate—in that order.
I couldn’t disagree more, what scares me is all the SR22 drivers with there straight in approaches because there telling people what there doing instead of flying published traffic patterns like us dangerous Cub pilots, and half the time there on the wrong frequency. Or the huge B747 patterns of the C172 flight school airplanes being taught now days, you will never make the airport when It quits.
Get off the radio and fly the airplane!!!! It’s doesn’t matter what your flying or where….. it’s a SEE and avoid airspace system, not announce and avoid-
Ryan,
I’m seeing the same 2 things at my home airport.!
It gets bad enough that I’ll leave the pattern for an hours and come back when the pattern is ‘quieter’.
See and avoid is paramount, but not exclusive. When a Piper Cherokee is above a high wing on final, in this case a Cub, there is no see and avoid, only pancake aluminum and fabric. Had is not been for the guy waiting on take off (with a radio), I would have set right down on top of him, and all that hardware would have been at the bottom of a pond below us. True, communications are tertiary to flying the airplane, and only effective if everyone complies, but is is still the third item in that phrase. I mean, based on pushback listed in these threads, why not eliminate radios altogether for VFR? All we would have to do is look around and everything will be just fine!
14 CFR PART 1:
“Traffic pattern means the traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from, an airport”.
Pretty straight forward…
Non towered airports are not necessarily dangerous, but like flying in general do require risk management. Preflight planning, playing by the rules and following the established procedures go a long way to help mitigate the risk.
The key works are ‘ follow the establi,hed procedures’ !
We have a few local pilots that don’t, or won’t follow the procedures or regs., which makes it dangerous for the rest of us.
Which is why I’m moving to another local airport as as soon as a hangar is available. !
Not all non-towered airports are created equal; so there are a few more things to consider than just making “ye ol’ left turn”. How you fly your no-radio J-3 Cub off your remote grass strip in Class G airspace is up to you; it really is none of my business. How you fly your J-3, or IFR-equipped SR-22, at a non-towered airport in Class E airspace, with a 5,000′ paved runway (with two possible t/o & landing directions; hopefully not in use simultaneously), instrument approaches, and shared by multiple aircraft of mixed categories…does concern me.
That’s the same diagram we have seen here before, with the blue right hand cross-hatch lines going the opposite direction from the legend in the upper right corner……………………
Reading the comments, and the original premise, I’m amazed at the lack of knowledge many pilots seem to have about ops at non-towered airports. I hangar my airplane at GXY (Greeley, CO). It has an 800’ TPA and a right hand pattern for 28, with standard left hand patterns for 10, 35, and 17. Because it has a nice cafe and some good mechanics, and because it has instrument approaches to every runway, it gets a lot of transient traffic, although otherwise it’s a relatively quiet non-towered airport. Often, though, transient pilots use a 1000’ TPA and just about any turns into and out of the pattern. Yet all that stuff is in both the FARs and the AIM, plus the ACs and the Airport/Facility Directory or Chart Supplement, whichever you’d like to call it. It’s as if they don’t do any planning, at all.
But nonetheless, even with the intentionally or unintentionally rogue operations that happen, statistically it’s a pretty safe airport. I haven’t done an exhaustive study, but none of the very few accidents I’ve found to occur at GXY have had anything to do with it’s being a non-towered airport. I’ve found things like engine failures, gear collapses, LOC on ground, but that’s it.
In almost 5 decades of flying, I’ve flown into a whole lot more non-towered airports than towered. I cannot say that any of the towered airports appeared any safer than non-towered airports, as long as the users complied with the applicable rules. Oh, and just a little courtesy to one another helps, too, whether the airport has a tower or doesn’t.
In my opinion, one of the things that need changing is the radio frequencies at non towered airports. Often times when using 122.8 there are many non towered airports using that frequency and trying to establish contact with the airport one is landing becomes a safety issue. I think there should be more frequencies for non towered airports. It would be safer than trying to establish contact with a certain airport and hearing transmissions from many others.
You can’t paint all “non-towered” airports and the pilots that use them, with the same brush.I grew up flying from non-towered airports, in the West: I loved it, still do. I don’t remember many that didn’t already have a 1,000′ TPA, but the West is a big place.
Thankfully, for now, there are still lots of non-towered airports out there; but not all non-towered airports are created equal. One problem is with pilots that don’t know, or care, that there differences, and they’ll employ the same less-than-stellar practices regardless of where they’re flying. Not all non-towered airports are in uncontrolled Class G airspace; many are in controlled Class E airspace. So, there are a few more things to consider than just making “ye ol’ left turn”. How you fly your no-radio J-3 Cub, or IFR-equipped SR-22, off your remote private grass strip in Class G is up to you. And although I am jealous, it really is none of my business. How you fly your J-3 or SR-22 at a non-towered airport in Class E, with a 5,000′ paved runway (that means two possible t/o & landing directions, hopefully not in use simultaneously), instrument approaches, and multiple aircraft of mixed categories…does concern me.
As far as that “stupid” AC 90-66B goes (which has been out since 2018): It’s disheartening to learn that lots of folks still don’t know that it exists. It’s more disheartening to know there are folks that do know it exists, but opt not to follow, or even consider, the guidance in it. The fact that there’s ANY guidance out there, that at least attempts to ‘standardize’ operations at non-towered airports, is still foreign to some pilots. A couple years ago, I presented a seminar on non-towered airport ops for one of the large “advocacy organizations”. During it, I pointed out that in the AIM (Ch. 4), the FAA lists five (5) “recommended” radio calls for inbound aircraft. At one East Coast venue, I had a very heated discussion with a gentleman that stood up and informed me, quite passionately, that if I only made those 5 calls, I was not welcome to fly at “his airport”. I guess that’s how they keep out the no-radio riffraff.
Bottom line: Nothing will lead to more restrictions and oversight faster than a tragedy. The fact that, so far, there have been relatively few MACs at non-towered airports, is history. Tomorrow is a new day. I think we would all gasp if we knew how many NMACs go unreported. As has been said…repeatedly. We all want the same thing; to pursue our “freedom to fly”, safely, with as few regulations and government-mandated restrictions as possible. But sometimes, you have to listen to the adult in the room; even if you don’t like what they have to say. When everyone has their own standard, there is no standard. Maybe if we ALL attempted to comply with some basic common standards and recommended practices, those regulatory requirements and restrictions might not be lifted, but they also might not multiply.
I have to agree with TedK’s comment that a “towered airport breeds a false since of security”. I have enjoyed 39-years of flying with 95% of my flights operated out of non-towered airports. My only close call was at a towered airport where I was on final and properly cleared to land. Thanks to my hours of experience of being in the traffic pattern at non-towered airports, I was able to avert a potential disaster.
It is my opinion that pilots who frequent non-towered airports on a regular basis are more aware of their surroundings while in the traffic pattern, because they have to be… it’s just that simple. Also keep in mind these are small airports with short runways, many of which are grass. Would you really want to go “Big City” on these small town airports?
Although I rather prefer “towered airports, in my plus than 35 years of flying, the only NMAC I had was in one “towered airport”, and I was advice of the incoming trafic by ATC when my avoiding maneuvering as been completed.
Fortunately I, as always, practice the “see and avoid” traffic rules. Of course, ATC apologized.
Nothing will lead to more restrictions and oversight faster than a tragedy. The fact that, so far, there have been relatively few MACs at non-towered airports, is history. Tomorrow is a new day. I think we would all gasp if we knew how many NMACs go unreported.
I fly out of a towered Class D airport but for the most part, I fly to uncontrolled fields. I know there are situations where people don’t follow the ACs and the AIM are not followed but for the most part they are and I have never had a situation where I felt there was a danger. Nearly all airports publish a pattern altitude and there are ways of approaching them that are standard. I have not come upon a NORDO airplane that I did not see.
I would point out that there have been accidents and deaths at towered airports. When I was a student, I could have become one of those statistics as I was cleared in front of a landing plane by ATC. The clearance was immediately rescinded and I was able to stop before entering the runway.
ADS-B has made it even better since the faster planes nearly all have ADS-B and they show up on my display. (Still important to have your head on a swivel. See and avoid no matter where you are.)
I’ll start my comments with the old, worn out caveat: You can’t paint everything with the same broad brush. In this case, “non-towered” airports and the pilots that use them.
I’m also a “westerner”, and grew up flying from non-towered airports: I loved it, still do. Unfortunately, many of those airstrips are now shopping centers or housing developments, but that’s a topic for another tirade.
(I don’t remember many that didn’t already have a 1,000′ TPA, but the West is a big place.)
Thankfully, for now, there are still lots of non-towered airports out there; but not all non-towered airports are created equal.
Obviously, they come in a huge variety of sizes, configurations and ownership/use combinations. Many are Private/Restricted use; but thousands are public use, whether privately or publicly owned. One problem is with pilots that don’t know, or care, that there is a difference, and they’ll employ the same less-than-stellar practices regardless of where they’re flying.
Not all non-towered airports are in uncontrolled airspace…Class G (91.126); many are in controlled airspace…Class E (91.127). So, there are a few more things to consider than just making “ye ol’ left turn”.
How you fly your no-radio J-3 Cub, or IFR-equipped SR-22, off your remote private grass strip in Class G airspace is up to you. And although I am jealous, it really is none of my business.
How you fly your J-3 or SR-22 at a non-towered airport in Class E airspace, with a 5,000′ paved runway (that means two possible t/o & landing directions, hopefully not in use simultaneously), several instrument approaches, and multiple aircraft of mixed categories…does concern me.
As far as that “stupid” AC 90-66B goes (which has been out since 2018): It’s disheartening to learn that lots of folks still don’t know that it exists. On the other hand, it’s disturbing to know that there are folks that do know it exists, but opt not to follow, or even consider, the guidance in it.
The fact that there is ANY guidance out there, that at least attempts to ‘standardize’ operations at non-towered airports, is still foreign to some pilots.
A couple years ago, I presented a seminar on non-towered airport operations for one of the large GA “advocacy organizations”. During it, I pointed out that in the AIM (Ch. 4), the FAA lists five (5) “recommended” radio calls for inbound aircraft.
At one East Coast venue, I had a very heated discussion with a gentleman that stood up and informed me, quite passionately, that if I only made those 5 calls, I was not welcome to fly at “his airport”. I guess that’s how they keep out the no-radio riffraff.
Nothing will lead to more restrictions and oversight faster than a tragedy. The fact that, so far, there have been relatively few MACs at non-towered airports, is history. Tomorrow is a new day. I think we would all gasp if we knew how many NMACs go unreported.
Bottom line: As has been said…repeatedly. We all want the same thing; to pursue our “freedom to fly”, safely, with as few regulations and government-mandated restrictions as possible. But sometimes, you have to listen to the adult in the room; even if you don’t like what they have to say.
When everyone has their own standard, there is no standard. Maybe if we ALL attempted to comply with some basic common standards and recommended practices, those regulatory requirements and restrictions might not be lifted, but they also might not multiply.
“Or would you add 20,000 control towers to the national airspace system, making every airport controlled?”
….really? “C’mon Man”
Well written, Mr. D.
I have been flying for nearly fifty-years. All three of my near misses have been away from the airport traffic area. One involved an A-10 that broke formation, while in the clouds. Our passenger aircraft was on an IFR clearance, between layers and on the start of being vectored for an approach.
The gentleman who assumes his air safety hypothesizes are facts, I am sure means well. And he may be proven correct, but not in my experience. There is a real danger in setting policies on the basis of what we think we know. Reasonable guesses do not make unassailable facts.
At Flabob Airport, which we prefer to call “tower-free,” we have had only one midair in the pattern in 57 years, which was sadly fatal to one pilot, who did not possess in the airplane the eyeglasses required by his medical certificate. It is also worth noting that a tower has zero responsibility for separating VFR aircraft in the pattern, which are dependent on see-and-avoid, just the same as at a nontowered airport.
After 52 years and over 23,000 hours, I’ve fortunately only had only one NMAC in the vicinity of an airport; and that was at a towered airport, during its hours of operation. Having flown frequently into non-towered (uncontrolled) airports all across the country, I find that many aviators seem to understand recommended protocol, if and when I see any evidence of another operation. To ask the government to implement a system for control at most of those fields would be akin to installing traffic signal lights at every intersection. Safe practices should only be encouraged, not legislated.
The closest I have ever come to having a midair was at a controlled airport (Class D).
The other pilot ignored the controller’s instructions and passed five feet underneath me. (I was on Base and he on Downwind.)
My preference is and always has been uncontrolled airports.
I suspect it all depends on the environment you learned at.
I was really upset when I read the complaint from Dave. I fly from a “non towered airport” and like it.
I would like to complement Mr Dubois for his very cogent and well researched answer. He hit all the objections I had with the complaint. Thank you Mr Dubois.
Who says Non-Towered fields are more dangerous? The AIAA study didn’t differentiate. My experience indicates a Tower breeds a false sense of security among pilots which results in reduced responsibility for their own separation. Worse, the Tower makes mistakes. I am aware of two F-18s that recently had to take evasive action to avoid a midair with each other after mistaken direction from the tower.
I’m happier without the tower at a single runway airpory.
“The ONLY FAA law one must follow, mandated by the FAA via Congress, is that all turns are to be to the left.”
My non-towered airport is left-hand pattern, but the Army Guard often uses our airport with their helicopters to practice approaches and landings, and they always use a right-hand pattern, opposite all other GA aircraft. Why? Because helicopter pilots sit on the right side. Apparently they are not familiar with this mandate, or think it doesn’t apply to them. I’ve often thought watching them, that is is an accident waiting to happen.
14 CFR part 91.126 (b) (2) requires that “Each pilot of a helicopter or powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft”.
Most helicopter pilots use a right hand pattern at a lower altitude to comply with the regulations and has nothing to do with which seat they may be sitting in.
If you consider that practice to be a safety of flight issue, I would suggest you take it up with your airport manager. They could then take it up with the Army Guard unit and possibly come up with a better way of doing things.
We all love to make theses issues black and white. The truth is somewhere in between.
95% of the non-towered airports have very little traffic. They are not a problem, no radio, fly strange pattern, not much is going to happen.
The bigger problem is the 1% of non-towered airports with a lot of operations. Usually near big cities and they have a lot of training going on. Most do not require Mode-C ADS-B or a Radio. Address these “middle ground” airports as the issue and safety will improve. They don’t really need a tower, but they do need some help in the form of required published patterns (not all airports are over the flat lands), radio required, etc.
You’re right. You can’t paint all non-towered airports, and the pilots that use them, with “the same broad brush”.
Not all non-towered airports are created equal. Not all non-towered airports are in uncontrolled Class G airspace; many are in controlled Class E airspace. So, there are a few more things to consider than just making “ye ol’ left turn”. My concern is the pilots that don’t know, or care, that there are differences, and they employ the same less-than-stellar practices regardless of where they’re flying.
How you fly your no-radio J-3 Cub, or IFR-equipped SR-22, off your remote private grass strip in Class G is up to you. And although I am jealous, it really is none of my business. How you fly your J-3 or SR-22 at a non-towered airport in Class E, with a 5,000′ paved runway (with two possible t/o & landing directions, hopefully not in use simultaneously), instrument approaches, and multiple aircraft of mixed categories…does concern me.
This is just like many things in our lives. Folks should play by the rules already in place — we don’t need any new rules!
Absolutely
You’ve got it. Play nicely with others and there is no problem…
I agree with Mr. Dubois. At un-controlled fields see and avoid is the rule and if you don’t follow it. Shame on you.
The big guys EAA and AOPA are in bed with the big money guys. All you have to do is look at what sport pilot has created. .They supported the big industry that was building the 100 k sport pilot planes . They left out all the training aircraft that we used when we were getting our private pilot license . It was and still is all about the money and not GENERAL AVIATION . The grass root pilot is going the way of the horse and buggy. The 1320 gross weigh and 45 mph stall is contrived by the European standard where sport pilot aircraft were being built . General aviation is for the rich guy today and that my friends is the way it is.
EAA and AOPA DID try to get the smaller training aircraft incorporated in Light-Sport. The FAA balked and decided to go with an existing weight limit from Europe. Now with the years of data on their side, the alphabets are working with the FAA on MOSAIC, with will change the Light-Sport weight maximum to a more scientific “energy” equation, among other changes to the FAR’s. People keep harping on AOPA and EAA that they don’t do enough for us. But were would we be without them? Probably like Europe! I for one, keep up my dues to both organizations. I then, as a member, can tell them when I think they’ve made a mistake.
These “scare tactics” or “nanny state mentalities” are slowly eating away at our freedom. If you feel uneasy about flying into an uncontrolled airfield, then don’t. Your choice.
Bottom line: We all want the same thing; to pursue our “freedom to fly”, safely, with as few regulations and government-mandated restrictions as possible. But sometimes, you have to listen to the adult in the room; even if you don’t like what they have to say.
When everyone has their own standard, there is no standard. Maybe if we ALL attempted to comply with some basic common standards and recommended practices, those regulatory requirements and restrictions might not be lifted, but they also might not multiply.
I too like the freedom of non-towered, but I DO think radios should be required. Even the Cub drivers can afford a portable. I nearly had a mid-air on final due to a Cub driver acting stupid, and NORDO. Like Ron White said, “ya can’t fix stupid”, but with radios, we can talk about it, and warn others.
I have a dear friend that is totally deaf. He has been flying over 40 years with no problems. His C-150 has a KX-170B but it is useless to him. He is more sensitive to the aircraft’s condition than I ever could be. He can “feel”, recognize and react to a miss in the engine and see other aircraft approaching well before I do. He utilizes uncontrolled airports exclusively. Should we cut him out of his passion because he can’t talk “about it”? I think not. Maybe Ron White is correct but if the “Cub Driver” has the ability to become a Pilot, and can afford to own & fly a Cub; well, I submit to you he is not “Stupid”. Perhaps he has become complacent over the years, perhaps he just didn’t see you. But these sort of things should be addressed during the Bi-Annual Flight Review or other forums as well. Weather we are in controlled/uncontrolled airspace it is our duty to be vigilant, see and be seen. You didn’t crash into the Cub so once again it worked. Our politicians spend a lot of time talking and not much good seems to be coming of that either. Generally, we have a good thing going and overall the FAA is fairly reasonable. Let’s not mess it up with more requirements.
Ponca City EAA chapter has a fly-in breakfast every month that draws pilots from all over. I flew my NAvion over from NW Arkansas a few times to the Ponca City airport which has been uncontrolled for years. Never had a problem with any of the Cubs, Aircoupes, T-craft, or other NORDO birds, but had a near miss on final with a Bonanza full of glass coming out of the OKC area and turning in beside me because “no one was controlling the traffic and I didn’t see you” according to the pilot. BTW, those folks with radios were mostly on them and we never heard the Bone pilot key his mic.
Safety doesn’t reside in laws, safety is what we do and how we do it.
Using the principles discovered by behavioral economics can be mindfully applied in many environments to increase the probability of desired behaviors.
Reminding someone of a situation or structuring that person’s perceptions, has an effect. For example, painting lines lines perpendicular to direction of travel at decreasing intervals on a roadway provides the driver with the perception of speed and serves as an unconscious trigger to reduce speed.
An automated radio message transmission on the airport CTAF or an adjacent frequency simply reminding pilots in the vicinity of the traffic pattern of the day, possibly in conjunction with ADS-B in, might be an inexpensive way to simply remind pilots of the pattern direction and altitude.
While towered airport traffic is controlled by the tower folks, it’s up to the pilots to fly standard procedures and announce their positions, if they have a radio.
What I’ve noticed, is that over the last 4-5 years, some of the non-towered airports that I fly to, the pilots are getting ‘sloppy’, or are intentionally ignoring normal procedures;
– flying huge patterns, flying straight-in with a number of aircraft in the pattern.
– after takeoff, turning near midfield and flying over people at less than 500 ft.
– announce approach to the 45 from 3,000 ft+ and more than a mile out.
– ‘big tired’ aircraft landing in the grass next to the runway.
So, I can see that it has gotten more dangerous… It’s the pilots.
However, since there is no one at the airport to record any violations, pilots have no fear of any FAA actions. So it will continue.
I now avoid certain airports here in NorCal, and I’m planning on moving my aircraft to another local airport because my current ‘home’ airport has gotten more dangerous to fly out of than I can tolerate.
Agree 100%: As far as Mr. Dubois’ “stupid” AC 90-66B goes (which has been out since 2018): It’s disheartening to learn that lots of folks still don’t know that it exists. It’s more disheartening to know there are folks that do know it exists, but opt not to follow, or even consider, the guidance in it. The fact that there’s ANY guidance out there, that at least attempts to ‘standardize’ operations at non-towered airports, is still foreign to some pilots. A couple years ago, I presented a seminar on non-towered airport ops for one of the large “advocacy organizations”. During it, I pointed out that in the AIM (Ch. 4), the FAA lists five (5) “recommended” radio calls for inbound aircraft. At one East Coast venue, I had a very heated discussion with a gentleman that stood up and informed me, quite passionately, that if I only made those 5 calls, I was not welcome to fly at “his airport”. I guess that’s how they keep out the no-radio riffraff.
“Dangerous, yes. Stupid, yes. Then why isn’t it fixed? ” The only thing dangerous or stupid is that attitude. Non-Towered airports are a mainstay of general aviation, and as William observes, if the reader wants to add 20,000 control towers, let him write the check! I have been based at non-towered airports in CA and TN, and would have it no other way. If pilots are properly trained, proficient, and observe the available guidance, operations at non-towered airports do not pose an undue hazard.
I guess I just learned something. Did not know left-hand turns were federally mandated. ‘Non-standard’ right hand patterns are fairly common.
“Dangerous”? I recognizea heightened alert approaching the airport environment but I’ve never been uncomfortable in the pattern except where there’s active skydiving.
“Stupid”? Sounds a little harsh.
But mainly, I just hope Congress doesn’t come to our rescue.
We don’t need more regulation at non-towered airports. They work just fine. Some people are only comfortable if they are boxed up with more restrictive rules or laws. Please save me from those people!
There are regulations (which are “top down”) and there are societal norms. In the US everyone drives on the right, in the UK, they drive on the left. Those are more normative than regulated. Everyone ‘just does it’.
If you read my comment above, you might notice that I do not advocate for more regulations, and the ensuing power struggles they might engender. Rather, I propose a solution for the good of all participants in the system which will increase the pilot’s participation
I’m with you!!!!!!!