There is a trend towards arrogance in our society that spills over into aviation. This trend troubles me.
Not because I am concerned people might not agree with me, or like me, or think me to be smart and handsome and witty. Rather, my worry has to do with safety. More specifically the lack of focus on it.
Ultimately, it comes down to hubris. It’s time for a personality re-set — a new way of looking at what we do and how we do it in the interest of keeping ourselves, our passengers, and our fellow fliers safe.
Let’s start with a specific example of how this arrogance can cause trouble.
I received a call some weeks back from a woman who was absolutely incensed that she had flown to a distant airport, requested landing on a specific runway, and was denied. She landed, but not on the runway she wanted. ATC had the audacity to send her to another runway — the one they were sending all other traffic too. This perceived affront made her mad, so she called me.
It appears she called quite a few people to complain about ATC denying her a right that was guaranteed to her by her desire to land on that specific runway and her 40 years of flight experience. And yes, you read that right. She considered it a right that she should be allowed to land on the runway of her choice. A curiously confusing bit of logic considering the Federal Aviation Regulations quite clearly state that flying is a privilege, not a right.
The crux of the matter was that she knew, based on her 40 years as a pilot, that runways are built and maintained with federal funds and so she should be allowed to land on any one of them she wishes whenever she informs ATC of her intent.
Truthfully, runway selection isn’t a seniority-based system. ATC is charged with providing information intended to lead to a safe, uninterrupted flow of traffic. The senior wide-body captain and the student on a solo flight should receive the same level of service, at least in theory.
As it happens, I am familiar with the runway in question. It was not constructed with federal funds, nor was it maintained with federal funds. A private organization is responsible for it. Hearing that wasn’t good enough for the entitled pilot on the phone. Her complaints continued. She’s been flying for 40 years you know.
After concluding a conversation that neither party found to be productive, I went to the resources and looked up the airport and runway in question. The runway was closed by NOTAM. It had been closed for weeks and will remain closed for at least two more months.
Now, I’m fairly certain that in this specific situation a NOTAM outweighs 40 years of flying experience. Or a bruised ego. And I’m sure the FAA has said something in the past that pilots are responsible to be familiar with all available information that’s pertinent to their planned flights.
That should matter.
Personally, when the tower says, “No,” I’m very willing to take that rejection and move on to the next option without arguing the point. Call me meek. Call me mild. My goal is to flow within the system, not to redesign the system while I’m in flight.
Arrogance Erodes Safety
Along that same line of thinking, I was seriously disappointed with the reaction to a recent column I wrote about the proper way to enter the traffic pattern at a non-towered airport. The method I described wasn’t of my own invention. It is clearly outlined in AC 90-66B, an FAA publication intended to bring clarity to an unnecessarily muddy subject.
Shockingly, and yes, I use that word advisedly, a considerable number of pilots responded with their hardened belief in their own personal method of arrival — a method they have not published and distributed to the aviation community at large. A method that is at odds with the method the FAA has recommended.
Can there be a reason beyond arrogance to insist on using a non-standard method that erodes the safety factor for every other pilot in the area?
My home airport experienced a mid-air collision some years ago when an instructional flight with a CFI on board entered a right-hand traffic pattern at a runway with an established left-hand pattern. A student pilot flying solo and using the correct pattern was lucky to survive when he found himself driven into the ground by the larger airplane as it collided with him from above on short final.
Preventable? Yes. What caused this accident? A complete disregard for standard practices in favor of the CFI’s preference to do whatever the hell he wants. The result? Bent metal and soaring hospital bills.
Unfortunately, that’s not an aberration. The recent fatal mid-air at Watsonville, California, is a prime example of this disregard for established procedures at non-towered airports and the predictable outcome that can result. The smaller, slower aircraft was established in the pattern. The larger, faster aircraft was not.
Consider this: Does the FAA advise straight-ins at non-towered fields? No. Does the straight-in aircraft have the right of way? No. Would the average pilot on base leg assume an aircraft would be on short final at nearly 200 knots? No.
The result of throwing caution and well-established safety standards to the wind can literally be fatal.
Each of us who flies has a decision to make. Several decisions, actually. All of them have to do with the safety of flight. For us and for others.
Personally, I choose to fly in a way that others can predict with reasonable confidence. I take FAA guidance with the same weight I took my mother telling me to take out the garbage. Even if it’s framed as a suggestion, it’s not just a suggestion.
Let’s all be safe out there, because the alternative is that none of us is safe. And that’s unacceptable.
I wonder if that woman pilot would argue with the police if she’s stopped for a traffic violation that “The public streets were built with MY tax money, so I can drive on them in any direction or speed that I like”.
Bingo!
HAVING READ ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS I WAS REMINDED OF A CLOSE CALL I HAD YEARS AGO AT A CONTROLLED AIRPORT. WHILE ON DOWNWIND IN A PIPER CHEROKEE, I SUDDENLY SAW A JET FLY BY AT A MUCH HIGHER SPEED. I HAD NO TALK ON THE RADIO FROM THE TOWER OR THE OTHER PLANE. THE TOWER MADE NO MENTION OF THE JET IN THE PATTERN. THE JET LANDED AND MADE NO COMMENT OF THE CLOSE CALL. I REMAINED IN THE PATTERN AND LANDED. AS THIS WAS MANY YEARS AGO I FAILED TO QUESTION THE TOWER AS IT SEEMED TO ME AT THE TIME THAT THE JET HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY. MY MISTAKE. I SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST QUESTIONED THE TOWER ABOUT THE JET TRAFFIC OVER TAKING ME IN THE PATTERN.
FOR THE RECORD I WAS A CFI WITH A STUDENT AT THE TIME. I HAVE BEEN FLYING FOR OVER 70 YEARS AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND PILOT’S WHO DISREGARD THE SAFETY AND RESPECT OF OTHER PILOTS. IT’S A PRIVILEGE WE ALL ENJOY.
I stopped flying years ago ($$$$) but when active, I took the activity very seriously. People used to ask me why I pre-flighted the airplane over again if I had to leave it unattended and out of my sight for a few minutes. It only takes one accidental bump from a tug or one airplane taxiing out to cause a bad day when taking off or trying to land!
I never had an incident or accident due to my negligence and I consider that worth the time I spent checking the aircraft over again.
Narcissism is at an all time high in our country…
My first thought at this article was “you don’t have to be rich, or powerful, to be the jerk in the pattern, or the marina, or the supermarket”. I’ve only been flying 54 years, so I’m still learning. But what I have learned is to keep your yes and ears opened wide all the time, controlled or non-towered. There are jerks in all socio-economic levels. It does seem to me though, that there are more out there now days.
Be nice and be safe!
In my years of flying I never encountered such bad attitude and disregard for fellow pilot safety as I have in the past three years. It’s a dangerous attitude trend that has to stop to prevent further loss of life?
May have been a pilot for 40 years, but she did not have 40 years of experience.
Seems she had more than 40 years of arrogant jack a$$ or ignorance, however
First, let me say “thank you Jamie” for this service you provide to make aviation safer.
As I read you article I was planning a comment but then I got to the “NOTAM – runway closed” and that changed everything.
Still, I think my intended comment may help some less experienced pilots. ATC is at present a “voice control” operation. Using the proper terminology is imperative for good communication and control. An experienced pilot needing to use a runway conflicting with the existing traffic should “request runway 12 for operational reasons “. If in flight and that does not work, the next step is to preface you reply with the words “mayday mayday” or if the pilot is timid then he/she my substitute the phrase “pan, pan”.
We occasionally read about cars entering a freeway via an exit and driving the wrong way. It usually doesn’t end well. But it’s usually caused by a driver heavily under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, or fleeing the police.
Pilots generally don’t have these excuses.
Arrogance has many roots and sources in everyday life. While the vast majority of GA pilots are safety conscious and considerate of the other guy, a small fraction of them exhibit attitudes shaped by their business and personal lives. My life’s experience has acquainted me with wealthy and successful businesspersons who are long-accustomed to having their own way in their businesses, on the highway and at the marina. They throw their weight around like they own the place and disregard the feelings and safety of others. They violate the rules and regulations at the marina with their super yachts and speed in no-wake zones nearly capsizing smaller boats. And don’t give a damn because they are who they think they are — wealthy and important — and they know ‘lesser people’ have to live with their behavior. Bad GA pilot behavior is just another manifestation of their arrogance. Occasionally — very occasionally — one of them gets a much-deserved comeuppance and we can smile with satisfaction.
Exactly!
Martha Lunken Syndrome.
In my mis-spent youth, I used to ride motorcycles.
My mind-set was:
1) I am invisible, nobody is looking for me and since they can’t see me, they might very well run me over.
2) If they CAN see me, expecting them to actually DO anything to avoid running me over is just wishful thinking. (Slow down? Step on the brakes? Turn the steering wheel a little? You have to be kidding.) A few of them might actively TRY to run me over.
3) Be paranoid, don’t trust other drivers, think far ahead and never put yourself into a position or situation that YOU cannot exit safely.
I fly the same way. Fortunately 99.999% of the idiots are on the ground, so our odds are better. Our training is also worlds better, and we have strobes, ADSB, radios, radar coverage and more. We shouldn’t get complacent though, it takes only one moron to ruin your day. Have a good time, but be careful!
Exactly – practice defensive flying. Don’t be hardheaded and be dead right. As far as pattern entries, I’d rather have all faster airplanes make a straight-in so I can easily and safely follow them.
Well said Jamie, as always.
It’s a small sandbox and we all got to get along so we can put the toys back in the box and see our families at night. None of are “entitled.”
I really hope that the pilot who is the focus of this article is the exception to the typical pilot. My personal experience (with only 35 years of flying experience) is she is the exception and she is merely a convenient launching point for this article. I’d rather yell at the people who tie up 121.5 with stupid comments and irrelevant banter.
As for pattern entries (since you brought it up… again…), I firmly believe that (as with many things in our 3D aviator world) it is situational. I believe a straight in approach (VFR) is rarely appropriate but perhaps there are very rare times when it may be safer (perhaps birds on both downwind… I don’t know… something the FAA didn’t think merited a mention in their advisory).
I certainly believe there are times when attempting to maneuver for the “recommended” downwind entry is simply dangerous. Some airports I fly into are on the edge of a class D for a military airport with a second uncontrolled GA airport on the other side, helicopter traffic on the opposite downwind, exist under the shelf of a class B, have possible wildlife on the runway, and there is a very narrow corridor for the recommended downwind entry.
In many cases, when approaching from a certain direction, say the southwest and flight following is terminated by the class B controller, it is simply safer to (while always stating intentions on the radio which you likely have) fly over the airport above pattern altitude, check for traffic and wildlife and windsock direction, and descend into a crosswind from an upwind for the downwind while keeping the airport and your intended downwind and its entry in sight. It is simply safer to do that and with speed control and extending upwind allows more options for fitting in with existing traffic.
And seriously, any advisory that the FAA may come up with will not cover this situation or a multitude of others. And I think it’s stupid to beat on a safe pilot up who chose something they deemed safer but not “advised” by someone not there.
The most predictable thing anyone can do is communicate and don’t venture into a pattern until assured they understand what’s both already in the air (both man made and nature made – birds and wind) and already on the ground (both man made and nature made).
It’s not that difficult and it’s called being a safe pilot.
And is this article any better when it comes to arrogance?
Telling every pilot that they don’t know the safest way to operate in an uncontrolled airport environment in every single situation?
Perhaps Jamie wasn’t being arrogant to the bulk of us, PD … maybe he just overlooked another viewpoint in the evolution … that the controller might be a misogynist? Frankly, I’m astonished that he missed that possibility in his analysis?
ESG or DEI ;->
I think most reasonable people, or at least pilots, are willing to acknowledge that there are occasional exceptions to the blanket “recommendations” provided by the FAA. (I know I will acknowledge as much.) I will also whole-heartedly agree that communicating our intentions effectively (particularly when we don’t follow those recommendations), and doing everything we can to understand the environment we are entering before doing so are two of the best proactive, defensive measures we can take.
However, I also think that there is a sometimes-too-common logical leap made by some pilots that goes something like this, “I know there are circumstances that a reasonable person would agree warrant exceptions to the ‘rules’. I also ‘know’ that I am a reasonable person. Therefore, my preferred exception must be one of those reasonable exceptions. So, I’m going to do what I want to do.” That’s a long way of saying that people, even generally thoughtful and careful ones, have a way of being particularly efficient (pronounced “lazy”), often at the most inopportune moments. And, unfortunately, that’s when bad stuff tends to happen.
So, while I don’t think you are wrong about there being exceptions to what are probably otherwise well-reasoned “recommendations”, I do think far too many people find far too many exceptions far more often than are really (if we are all honest) necessary. And, it is my assumption that it is those situations that Jamie is talking about here.
Re: 121.5 – Surely you mean 122,8 or one of the unicom freqs. I haven’t experienced useless comm on the emergency freq. That would likewise be more than annoying.
When the tower says no, thats it. Ironically the runway was notamed closed and it would be a violation against the towers to allow her to land. She was wrong and if the FAA wants to /they can call her in since she obviously did not check them……
Non towered is a sad story with not enough regulations to prevented a wild West situation at busy fields…..
My recent experience was a pilot calling a two mile final while I was on base turning to final. I wrongly assumed we had time to/land and was surprised as he flew under us and landed causing us to go around. He was obviously much closer and was wrong to go under us and had the audacity to yell at us for cutting him off……No accident but close!
Reading your comment brought to mind my experience turning base to final. As I was turning, I heard a transmission “3 mile final”. I have a handheld radio in my non electrical plane. I can hear quite well but there is so much noise when transmitting that no one can understand my transmissions. Flying a nordo plane, it is my belief that I must fly a pattern to give other pilots a chance to see my bright red tail dragger. Sorry, I digress. When I heard his transmission, I was able to look over my shoulder and see him about 3 miles out at a lower altitude. I initially continued my approach but got to thinking about whether this guy would seed my bright red star burst paint pattern. I decided to terminate the approach with a climbing left turn. As I was climbing out, the guy went by me and landed. He never acknowledged seeing me.
Also brings to mind another very close call. I had flown the pattern and landed with a roll out to my hanger about half way down our 5000 feet runway. There were no transmissions received on my hand held radio. Literally, as I barely cleared the runway, a Citation jet roared by my turnoff. I suspect he was on the wrong frequency, not 122.7 and flew a long final. My 60 mph pattern speed gives me plenty of time to see people in the pattern, if they fly a pattern.
The one I like best was the guy flying a rented twin. He announced final as I was rolling for take off. As I was climbing out, staying in the pattern, the guy landed, turned around and departed in the opposite direction. As he was climbing, he transmitted, “get a beeping radio”. I thought it was amusing that he would transmit his advise to a nordo plane.
Sorry, but I don’t understand flying Nordo by choice. I fly an aircraft without electrical power, and a handheld with external antenna works adequately to significantly improve safety. For noisy cockpit there are technical solutions from the microlight /ultralight fraternity that offer exceptional noise reduction.
“I have a handheld radio in my non electrical plane. I can hear quite well but there is so much noise when transmitting that no one can understand my transmissions.”
In your airSPACE, NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM.
So you’ll fly around and transmit static and gibberish, and that’s fair to the 99% of the other airplanes that have radios.
So you can pretend it’s nineteen eighteen in your red death machine?