The number to remember for today is 19,502. Keep that in mind as you read on. It’s pertinent to the story.
19,502 is the number of cities, towns, and villages that currently exist in the United States. Each has their own form of local government. They enact and enforce property codes, taxes, speed limits, garbage pick-up schedules, and parking rules.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if all 19,502 chose to enact uniquely different local ordinances that affected the airspace above their city, town, or village property limits.
Chaos would be the result. It would be virtually impossible to fly anywhere without violating the rules of some hamlet below as you cruise along at an altitude you thought was prudent and safe.
This isn’t the idle imagining of a rabble rouser hiding behind a keyboard in his mom’s basement. No, my keyboard is in the second floor lakeside office of a big old wood framed house with significant termite damage. My mom lives more than 1,000 miles away. I’m nowhere near her basement. Even so, this nightmare scenario could have happened. In fact, it nearly did.
Long before Kissimmee, Florida, become famous for being the less expensive housing option adjacent to the theme park capital of the world, it distinguished itself as the most anti-aviation city in the nation. Maybe in the world. All because city attorney P.A. Vans Agnew took a trip to Paris and got freaked out by the aerial demonstrations of Alberto Santos-Dumont.
The ordinance Agnew drafted, and the city passed, took control of aerial vehicles flying above the city limits up to an altitude of 25 miles. Its focus was intended to prevent catastrophe and chaos at lower altitudes. It banned balloons, aeroplanes, helicopters, ornithopters, or airships from flying within 10 feet of streets or alleys. It also prohibited flight within 20 feet of any paved surface at more than 8 miles per hour.
That would make the concept of a paved runway pretty much illegal.
The law is at least arguably logical, if not fanciful in its imaginings. But it was 1908. What did anyone know about flying machines in their various forms? There wasn’t an airplane in all of Kissimmee at the time. The whole population barely topped 2,000 residents.
But new things were happening in the world. People were suspicious and a bit worried. This gave rise to the almost always unfortunate panic-induced reaction, “somebody has to do something.”
Thankfully, the federal government took control of the space above our heads with the Air Commerce Act of 1926. A decade later the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 piled on with even greater gusto.
By 1946 the United States Supreme Court got in the game and limited property rights, preventing them from extending upward into the sky, a belief that was common in earlier times — a standard that would have virtually killed the aviation industry and all it has done to improve the quality of human existence had it been maintained.
I mention this historical throwback because of a very real safety issue we face in general aviation today. It shares a direct link to Kissimmee in 1908 and Thomas Lee Causby, the North Carolina farmer who brought the 1948 lawsuit that imagined a man’s property rights went straight up from the ground to the stars.
The upshot of all this, including the founding of the FAA in 1958, is that we enjoy a predictable, well-defined, legally protected airspace system that hangs above the land mass known as the United States. The rules above Poughkeepsie, New York, are the same as the rules above Las Cruces, New Mexico. Because of the foresight and effort of many whose names are long forgotten, we can fly from coast to coast in the smallest and lightest of aircraft, while sharing the airspace with behemoth freighters and passenger jets.
Recently, my concerns have been heightened as I’ve had interactions with a handful of pilots who insist the standardized operational procedures taught in every flight school in the nation don’t apply in their corner of the country.
That erroneous and frankly arrogant belief puts the entire flying population at risk.
A well-managed traffic pattern can handle a dozen aircraft or more at one time without undue risk to safety or efficiency. Plug one ego-driven pilot into that scenario and things can get really exciting, really fast.
He who believes with all his heart and soul that he knows a better way of entering and flying the pattern than all those others flying around him is truly dangerous.
This extends beyond traffic pattern procedures to a wide assortment of decisions and actions made by pilots who genuinely believe they know best. Not the FAA. Not the CFIs who conduct their flight reviews. Not the military and airline pilots who also enjoy flying general aviation aircraft under VFR conditions. Just them. Nobody else.
These folks are the sovereign citizens of the air. Their arrogance and ineptitude puts us all at unnecessary risk.
Isn’t it time to put a stop to this nonsense? We can if we simply speak up. Call them out. Make it clear that wanton disregard for accepted safety practices will not be tolerated in the airspace.
We all deserve better.
Our ammunition, of course, is the knowledge that the FAA has published a slew of books and advisory circulars for our benefit. It has standardized procedures and terminology. These are all available as PDF downloads for free or in hard copy from a wide assortment of publishers. In this day and age of high-speed Internet, tablets, and smartphones, there is no plausible reason that a pilot would not or could not know the rules.
Let’s up our game and leave opinion at the curb as we embrace the written, widely disseminated safety procedures that are freely available to us all.
It’s only our lives and our freedom to fly at stake. If you value either, it’s time to take a stand.
It may occasionally be inconvenient but I agree with removing oneself from the situation if possible, change altitude or location, and let things settle down, all while communicating. ADS-B I/O is very helpful and reminds us of what we may not have been seeing in the past and is a great way (as mentioned) to grab an N-number for ground discussion later. Re: Winter Haven accident, I learned to fly there, got seaplane rating there, etc., and traffic flowed amazingly well, probably because of the excellent awareness and pattern procedures stressed by the local FBO’s (especially Jack Brown’s Seaplane Base), but nothing beats communicating. So sad.
Scenario: I’m in a twin, returning from a cross-country flight, using ATC services to a non-towered, single runway airport. Night VMC. Cleared for the visual, runway lights in sight, at about 5 miles on final, and 500′ above pattern altitude.
There are 3 T&G aircraft in the pattern. I see all 3 on ADSB, but only 1 Visually.
#1 T&G is over the numbers from ADSB, but not in sight Visually.
#2 T&G is Downwind beyond where I would turn Base. In sight Visually and transmitting
Turning base, and yet still at pattern altitude. * I am guessing, this one will
make a high overshooting, time and distance consuming turn to final.
#3 T&G is on Downwind, pattern altitude, and not yet abeam the departure end of the
runway. ADSB, and I think I see a light coming from that position.
What are my options?
A Straight In, land, Keeping the Runway in sight all the way, compliant with my ATC clearance and rules for a Visual approach. I’m using the LPV, I’m stable, I’m configured for landing, my passengers are “safe” from any mishandling that I might do.
B Execute a missed approach without calling ATC back, maintain altitude, offset to the Right. Try to sequence behind one of the T&G’s? Oh, and maintain sight of the landing
runway at all times, while complying with the FAA circular.
C. Missed, maintain altitude, offset R, turn L cross over midfield, fly far enough away to allow for a 180 deg R turn and a 500′ descent, attempt to re- sequence using a 45 deg R turn putting me belly up to traffic and to the runway, that has already been ‘Not In Sight’ for too long.
What are my chances of arriving at the Downwind entry point with no conflicting traffic?
Answer is Choice X.
The T&G pilots all “get it” and Captainize. They don’t use AOPA or FAA advice per se’.
By
T&G #2 Extends, and advises this over CTAF
T&G #3 Transmits “In sight” report, my airplane, and the other T&G ‘s
After landing and transmitting clear of runway report, I add
“Thanks, appreciate ya’lls help. Havva great career.”
Conclusion.
It is not enough to only report position over CTAF.
Communicating Pilot to Pilot, Aircraft to Aircraft saves lives.
Let’s organize and proceduralize that.
Plus, if you are going to fly at night, then be equipped with a Comm and ADSB
Make that night, or for a place to start, if using any hard surfaced runway 2000’
or more in length.
Sweep the no electrical system and similar loophole types onto grass Aerodromes
It isn’t 1940 anymore.
AN IFR “Cleared for the visual” does not give you special rights for a straight-in. Work with the planes in the pattern, if they will make space for the straight in, great. If they won’t or can’t then you will need to adjust your entry to a more standard pattern entry.
I wonder if I could be included in the Wills of those non conforming pilots?
I have to check myself: Do I have any of the Hazardous Flight Attitudes? Mr. Aii, is what I’m talking. Macho, Resignation, Anti-Authority, Impulsivity, Invulnerability. Other pilots sometimes exhibit one or more of these, yes, but I don’t have to.
Sadly, proper radio technique, phraseology, discipline and use frequently takes a back seat in popular flight training curricula today. Behind the focus on stick and rudder, programming the boxes properly and executing procedures properly, us flight instructors often pile on hastily concocted flight training sessions dealing with radio use. Often, the student has formed their habit patters already based on what they’ve heard other pilots say. Which is usually not correct. Air Traffic Controllers, who frequently have a supervisor listening over their shoulder, are much better about sticking to proper phraseology than pilots are. “Got ’em on the fish finder” is heard frequently enough as a response to a traffic call to make me realize just how far we are from safe and effective communications as pilots.
I’ll venture out one step further: Improper use of/misuse of/failure to use properly our radios results in a significant number of pilots/passenger fatalities and injuries every year. Obvious errors in understanding such as the PanAm/KLM accident in Tenerife in 1977 are outliers, fortunately, but glaring examples of how quickly things can go wrong when radio communications are misunderstood. It doesn’t take much monitoring of any ATC facility to hear misunderstandings between pilots and controllers develop into near disasters. Fortunately, there are safeguards built into the system that at least attempt to stop disasters from happening. (“Pilots are required to read back hold short instructions” intoned endlessly on the ATIS being just one.)
I fly regularly with older pilots (ok, I’m becoming one myself!) and am appalled at what I sometimes see as intentional misuse of the radio and blatant disregard for proper phraseology. This is simply not acceptable. There seems to be a mindset that the radio skills are secondary to stick and rudder skills. That may have been the case at one time but in today’s busy environment, a clear and instant understanding of ATC instructions and 100% understanding between pilots and controllers, pilots and other pilots, (in the non-towered environment) is essential for flight safety.
We can do better.
Non towered airports have a bad record. Actually most mid-airs happen around them and some are horrific like the one at winter haven last year……Four dead two aircraft destroyed and my pet peeve is one aircraft had no radio…..although the regs do not require it.
My opinion was, If the other aircraft had a radio……It might have been prevented…..
The case has hit the courts and cost will be in the millions with companies possibly going out of business…..
Timely article. But omits another frequent problem: having some tolerance when people screw up. Just this last weekend a—presumably student—pilot ended up confused or something on downwind at KCPK, Chesapeake VA. Unfortunately this happened on downwind, just where the 45 intersects the pattern. I was passing overhead and watched on ADS-B and listened at 4 aircraft vied to occupy the same airspace.
With the advent of ADS-B pilots can now call out miscreants and scold them on the radio, demanding to know: “what are your intentions?” And chiding: “what you’re doing is not proper procedure.” All this did was fluster the offending pilot and did nothing to “fix” the problem.
It is no time to be standing on right of way rules and proper procedures with the offending pilot doing some sort of weird spiral down to TPA on downwind, a plane in the pattern closing behind on crosswind, and two planes on the 45 for the same runway, It was pure aviation jackassery start to finish.
None of the pilots involved seemed to have the good sense to just breakout and relieve the traffic jam. Since the other pilots know the offending pilot’s N number, these things are best dealt with on the ground, including the offenders CFI as part of the discussion. Instead, they all pressed on, demanding information, compliance, and right of way on the radio and no doubt flustering the student causing this mess.
I didn’t get to see how this all played out in the end because I was busy flying my own plane and changed frequency to land (but none of the pilots ended up on the news, either). But I did notice on the ADS-B that the offending student finally swung way out west away from the pattern, presumably to try the 45 again. And that the three other planes were nose to tail in the pattern, and that somebody was probably going to have to go around anyway.
The proper thing to do, in my experience, when there is considerable doubt and confusion in the air, is to remove myself from the problem. Clearly the solution is not piloting-on, gritching on the radio at the screwed up student and making everything worse.
That is why I prefer the previously accepted term for “non-towered airports:” UNCONTROLLED (stay vigilant for rougue pilots)!
Actually FAA published a new AC for non towered airports. 28 pages full of recommendations and one most important is FAA does not recommend making long straight in approaches to the runway.
The point is that a pattern full with students practicing in mostly training aircraft, a long straight in should not be to wise?!
There are many out there that do it anyway and that is when there are problems.
The new AC came out in 2023
So those that care please read it and be safe
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66C.pdf
regards and safe flying
Thank You, Rich!
I’ll most often gladly offer to extend my downwind as courtesy to straight-in traffic, often shooting practice instrument approaches at our training field. And always to kero burners and heavy twins.
But what sticks in my craw are then number of VFR pilots SEL aircraft who, being able to hear that there is a full pattern, claim straight-in from 5 or 10 miles out as if it the final word on ROW. Your claim of straight-in is just the beginning of the traffic negotiations at a non-towered airport, not the final word.
As a CFII I have instrument students who have to fly straight down to DH/MDA for instrument approaches to really get the full benefit of the approach. I simply communicate to other aircraft in the pattern to coordinate and it usually works out as most of the traffic here are training flights. We will break it off when we can’t fit in the pattern.
AC 90-66 spells it out. Not everyone will comply so it behoves pilots to keep eyes open and expect the unexpected. If it gets too squirrelly break out of the pattern and renter the pattern instead of arguing on the frequency. If able discuss it on the ground. And…communicate!
Happy flying!
Airport traffic patterns and highway zippered lanes in construction zones are nice concepts…but Unfortunately there are people involved.
Some on here are old enough to remember when Paul Harvey, in the context of journalistic obligation, ominously predicted “Behave, or you will be forced to behave.”
Non-towered airports, and the associated user guidance for operational safety, rely on a concept of self-government. Airport users must govern for and work to a level of airport system safety.
But self-government has demands which is why Mr. Harvey also quoted “Self-government won’t survive without self discipline.”
As your good buddy, Pat Brown, can attest to:
Non-towered airport operations were a major feature of the in-person Air Safety Institute safety seminars that AOPA canx’d when Covid hit.
Even if they weren’t the official topic-du-jour, I would find an opportunity to weave them into the discussion.
Given all the published FAA guidance on the subject, both before and after the AC 90-66 series started, it was disheartening to hear some folks react as if anything that was counter to their own preferred “tactics, techniques, and procedures” …was an impingement on their “Freedom to Fly”.
Pilots should especially know AC-90-66b; non-tower operations.