Funny Business

To students and low-time pilots, aviation may seem busy, business-like and serious. But the truth is there's often plenty of room to have a bit of fun on the radio. Here's a sampling of a few things I've heard on frequency over the past few years that I've been saving up. In some cases, I was personally involved, but in other cases I was just listening and chuckling.

Gulfstream: Oakland Tower, Gulfstream 123, ILS 27 Right, request 27 Left. 

Tower: Gulfstream 123, Oakland Tower, Howdy! I can offer you 27 Left, but expect about an 8 hour delay. Right now it's occupied by a bunch of service vehicles. 

Gulfstream: Okay, we'll take 27 Right

Ground: Duchess 123, Oakland ground, taxi 27 right via delta and charlie, maintain VFR at our below 2000', standby for a transponder code

Me: Delta, charlie, 27 right, VFR at or below 2000, Duchess 123.

Ground: Ah, Duchess 123, where did you say you were parked?

Me: Well we actually park in the Bat Cave, but we tell everyone the Port-a-Ports.

SFO Tower: Stationair 456, I have several heavies I need to depart runways 28, do you have to take photos right there?

Me: Everyone has to be somewhere.

Delta: Ground, Delta 123, ready to push gate 18.

Ground: Delta 123, Howdy, Oakland North Ground, contact South ground on 121.75

Me: Oakland Ground, Cessna 456, ready to push at the Port-a-Ports, VFR Ukiah with Foxtrot.

Ground: Cessna 456, Oakland Ground, push at your discretion, runway 33 taxi via delta, juliet, ...

JetBlue: Norcal, JetBlue 1122, one two thousand descending eight thousand with Foxtrot, How ya doin'?

Norcal: JetBlue 1122, Norcal Approach, when able proceed direct GILRO, How YOU doin'?

Taxi via Delta, Juliet ...

The main goal of any runway or taxiway safety initiative is simple: Prevent aircraft from running into each other whether they are taxiing, taking off, or landing. The FAA announced there were just 12 runway incursions for the 2010 fiscal year (ending in October), a 50% reduction from the previous year. The FAA's press release attributes the drop in runway incursions to new technology at airports, improved signage and markings, and improved pilot training on runway conflict scenarios. Surely all those capital improvements and increased pilot training helped reduce runway incursions, but there are low-cost improvements, too. There have also been FAA safety initiatives that may actually decrease safety as well as some widely used procedures that need to be changed.

Who's in Charge?

The dominant paradigm in aviation is to have an air traffic controller be the authority that manages conflicts, prevents collisions, and keeps the big picture. The ground controller gives instructions to pilots and flight crews and those guys and gals follow those instructions. Problems can still happen when pilots or controllers are confused or tired and make mistakes. Here's a simulation of a situation that occurred at Theodore Francis Green Airport during low visibility at night. A United flight crew makes a wrong turn while taxiing to the terminal, which takes them back to the active runway. The situation gets worse when the United crew realizes something is wrong, but twice they identify their position incorrectly to the tower controller. The tower controller loses The Flick and in the end, a US Airways crew makes a wise choice that averts disaster. (I chose this particular re-creation because it doesn't edit out the transmissions that reveal the tower controller's frustration, which I think figures prominently in this incident.)



This incident was probably the reason why Theodore Francis Green was one of thirty some airports where Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (aka ASDE-X) was installed or will be installed to help  controllers keep The Flick during low-visibility situations. Pilots operating on taxiways or runways set their transponders to squawk altitude and the controller sees each aircraft's position on a color display. This is surely a welcome addition in low-visibility situations.

Where You At?

A supporting approach to the Controller is the Boss paradigm is to provide rules and a clear context to pilots and flight crews so they can prevent conflicts on their own initiative. Several years back, an experimental system was tested at the Concord airport that involved placing sensors in the taxiway pavement at hot spots - locations on the airport where history had shown pilot were likely to get confused. When an aircraft taxied onto one of the sensors, a low-powered transmitter would broadcast a recorded message of the pilot's position and the pilot received these messages through their marker beacon receiver.

Though this was a clever use of existing avionics equipment, this system was expensive to install. Pavement had to be ripped up, sensors placed, and pavement reapplied. I tried this system several times and found that it worked, but there were limits to its usefulness. A disoriented or confused pilot still had to interpret what the recording was saying, find their position on a taxiway diagram, and then get un-confused. The system was deactivated after about a year, if memory serves me.

One safety enhancement left out of the FAA's press release was an important change that became effective in June of this year: New air traffic control phraseology for issuing taxi instructions. The gist of these changes was that ground controllers were required to explicitly provide the taxiways that pilots were to use when repositioning or taxing for takeoff. Prior to this, controllers were not required to specify a taxi route and (here's the amazing part) clearance to cross any runways along the way was implied. This procedure had the advantage of requiring controllers to say less, but this always seemed like a recipe for trouble. Add to this some controllers' tendency to be ... impolite when under stress and you can have a really bad situation.

At one airport where I teach, approval was provided years ago for a large corporation to construct a hangar that blocked the line of sight between the tower and portions of two taxiways that cross a runway. So ground controllers would tell aircraft "taxi to the Old Tees via Delta, hold short of runway 15 and report holding short." Some controllers are extra careful and add "That area is not visible from the tower." After hearing this countless times, pilots taxiing in that area became accustomed to stopping at the runway and reporting to the ground controller.

There was a particular air traffic controller (long since retired) who had a widely recognized reputation for being terse and impatient (I'm being nice here). At the conclusion of a long night flight, my student requested taxi clearance from this controller, but missed what the controller actually said: "Cessna 123, taxi to the Old Tees via Delta." There was no mention of holding short at the runway. The airport was dead quiet and as we approached the usual hold short point, my student put on the brakes. Confused, he asked me "Did he tell us to hold short?"

Thinking this to be one of those teachable moments, I offered "Anytime you are in doubt, you should ask." So he reported holding short. The controller let loose with a verbal fusillade the likes of which few of us have heard on frequency. My student turned to me, his mouth was open, but no words were coming out. During the debrief, I spent much time trying to undo the damage done by the controller, explaining to my student that he had indeed acted correctly and the controller's response was both unprofessional and contrary to safety. Visibility to the area I mentioned should not be a problem once the new control tower is completed. The new tower will replace the two, separate towers and will be more centrally located (near the FedEx ramp).

Another change has been the FAA's long-anticipated adoption of the ICAO phraseology Line up and wait. The old phrase "Taxi into position and hold" was often elided to "position and hold" and could be easily confused with the phrase "hold your position." This phraseology change is certainly a step in the right direction and required no expensive equipment to be installed.

Enhanced Centerline, Runway Guard Lights

The enhanced centerline became a Part 139 standard a couple of years ago. The idea was to make a taxiway centerline change appearance as an aircraft approaches a hold short line at a runway crossing. While the motivation for this change was safety, it's my feeling that the enhanced centerline is actually visual noise. Assuming there are no other unusual surface markings nearby, the enhanced centerline may help a flight crew avoid blowing through a hold short line. In areas where taxiway edge markings and patched pavement exist, all the dashed lines can become a confusing distraction.

Can you find the Enhanced Centerline?

Flashing runway guard lights can be installed adjacent to a hold short line or they may be embedded in the pavement prior to the hold short line. When these lights are embedded in pavement, they can actually obscure the runway centerline unless lead-in lights are also installed. Lastly these lights aren't the best for preserving night vision adaptation.

Taxi My Frequency

A very hazardous procedure that is often used by ATC is having one controller at an airport running both tower and ground frequencies. While this may save money by having one person doing two jobs during off-peak hours, it a dangerous practice. With one controller listening and transmitting on two frequencies, pilots and flight crews are robbed of The Flick because they can only hear one side of the conversation. This was a contributing factor to a near collision I had while taxiing one night.

I'd called ground to taxi to parking from the fuel island and received my clearance. As I began taxiing I saw a business jet rolling out on the runway parallel to me. The jet taxied clear and I heard the controller ask the jet where they were headed, but since the jet was still on the tower frequency I didn't hear their response. I did hear the controller tell them "You can taxi either route" and my spidey senses started tingling.

Sure enough, the jet chose the route that had it headed right toward me, the controller hadn't mentioned my presence to them, and they didn't appear to see me. I turned on my strobes and poured on the coals. The jet missed hitting me by a few feet and the irony was at the time, we were the only two aircraft on the airport. I mentioned to the controller that we'd nearly had a collision to which he simply replied "Roger." Had there been a separate ground controller and had the jet been on the same frequency that I was on, everyone could have cooperated to prevent a conflict. The FAA really needs to stop this practice of one controller running multiple frequencies because, quite frankly, it's dangerous.

More Progress Needed

The drop in runway incursions is a significant achievement. The latest hi-tech and high-cost initiative is NexGen and ADS-B, which we're told will enhance safety, reduce airline delays and prevent athlete's foot. Hopefully the folks at the FAA (and their contractors) will keep in mind that along with these expensive solutions, there are still many simple, low-tech, and low-cost changes that can provide significant safety enhancements. Of course that means that pilots, controllers, and the FAA must have the will to change old habits.

The Big Sky

On August 8, 2009, at 11:53 a.m. EDT, a Eurocopter AS 350 BA (N401LH) operated by Liberty Helicopters and a Piper PA-32R- 300 (N71MC) operated by a private pilot, collided in midair over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey. The certificated commercial pilot and five passengers onboard the helicopter were killed. The certificated private pilot and two passengers onboard the airplane were also killed. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plans were filed for either flight. The local sightseeing helicopter flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 136. The personal airplane flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

Following this very prominent midair collision, the media have been talking about procedures, policies, and regulations with which most reporters have little experience or expertise. This is nothing new. Every time I read a news story on a topic about which I'm not familiar, I wonder how accurate that story really is. But I digress ...

One news report seemed to imply that the pilot of the Piper (being a private plane) was at fault because it had run into the Eurocopter. The author of another story focused on the shocking fact that aircraft operating in the thin sliver of airspace over the Hudson River do so without talking to air traffic control and without a flight plan. Other reports tried to compare and contrast the water ditching of a US Airways Airbus with this accident. This compels me to comment on what is known about this accident, provide a pilot's perspective on operating in airspace that has little or no ATC intervention, and talk about just how well the see-and-avoid approach to preventing midair collisions really works. I'll attempt to address these issues so that non-pilots can develop a better understanding of just what pilots of smaller aircraft who fly at lower altitudes have to deal with on a regular basis.

Apples and Oranges
First off, the only thing this midair accident has in common with the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 is that in both cases, the aircraft ended up in the Hudson River. The US Airways accident involved a bird strike (which I guess is kind of like a midair collision) that resulted in a loss of power to both engines: The Airbus was still be flyable, it just didn't have any thrust to keep it from losing altitude. The fact that the plane was still flyable, combined with the skilled flight crew and a lot of luck, resulted in an amazingly successful water ditching. In contrast, the midair collision between the Piper and the Eurocopter caused catastrophic damage, both aircraft departed controlled flight, and the impact with the water was not survivable. The only thing these two accidents had in common was their location.

ATC's Role
The Piper departed Teterboro Airport and was, in fact, communicating with the tower controller until he was over the Hudson, when he was handed off to the Newark control tower. Talking to an airport's tower controller is mandatory when an aircraft is within that airport's airspace. In these situations, ATC will point out other potentially conflicting air traffic, but this is done on a workload permitting basis. Here's just a bit of what the Aeronautical Information Manual has to say on the subject:

4-1-15. Radar Traffic Information Service

This is a service provided by radar ATC facilities. Pilots receiving this service are advised of any radar target observed on the radar display which may be in such proximity to the position of their aircraft or its intended route of flight that it warrants their attention. This service is not intended to relieve the pilot of the responsibility for continual vigilance to see and avoid other aircraft ...

Many factors, such as limitations of the radar, volume of traffic, controller workload and communications frequency congestion, could prevent the controller from providing this service. Controllers possess complete discretion for determining whether they are able to provide or continue to provide this service in a specific case. The controller's reason against providing or continuing to provide the service in a particular case is not subject to question nor need it be communicated to the pilot. In other words, the provision of this service is entirely dependent upon whether controllers believe they are in a position to provide it.

Some questions have arisen about the Teterboro Tower's handling of the flight. Reportedly the controller was making a "non-business" phone call to the Newark tower which may have contributed to coordination problems with the handoff of the Piper from Tereboro to Newark. A conflict alert indication was shown on the radar displays at both towers as the Piper and the Eurocopter began to converge. Though these alerts usually produce both a visual and audio warning, neither controller recalled seeing or hearing the alert.

Several initial news reports made a big deal of the fact that the Piper's pilot never contacted the Newark tower after being handed off by the Teterboro tower. It's hard to know why that was, but it's also important to point out that a delay checking in after a handoff is quite common. Radio communication in aircraft is somewhat primitive - only one person can talk at a time. Perhaps the Piper's pilot was busy tuning his radio to the new frequency so he could check in, but we don't really know. It does appear that the frequency change came at a very inopportune time and the collision occurred shortly afterward. Remember all those studies that show distractions (like cell phone use while driving) reduce reaction time and situational awareness? The same thing can happen in aircraft and, apparently, in control towers.

Different Frequencies
Aircraft operating over the Hudson usually communicate using a CTAF - common traffic advisory frequency - which is like a party line where only one person can talk at a time. The CTAF is different from the frequencies used by Teterboro and Newark towers. The idea with the CTAF is that each aircraft announces their position, altitude, and intentions so that other pilots can put together a mental picture of where other traffic might be and avoid them. If this sounds primitive, it is! Yet in areas where there is no ATC service (usually at rural airports) and when there's not too much traffic, the CTAF set-up is pretty workable. The thing is that CTAF areas are usually not swarming with the volume of traffic that is seen on a daily basis over the Hudson River corridor. The important point here is that the Eurocopter was probably monitoring and transmitting on the CTAF while the Piper was monitoring and transmitting on the Teterboro Tower frequency.

Big Sky, Little Planes
This brings up the big sky theory of preventing midair collisions: The sky is big when compared to the size of aircraft, so the probability of a collision is reduced by the simple fact that the sky is so much bigger than the aircraft. This is a good theory if you assume that aircraft are randomly or evenly distributed throughout the big sky. Unfortunately, aircraft tend to congregate around certain locations (like around airports, helipads, and land-based navigation transmitters) like bees around a hive and that dramatically increases the probability of a collision.

The situation over the Hudson River adds another wrinkle since the area of airspace used by the sightseeing helicopters and other light aircraft is underneath and physically constrained by an overlying area of controlled airspace called Class Bravo. Entering Class Bravo requires a clearance from ATC precisely because this airspace was created primarily to keep small, slower aircraft away from larger, faster aircraft. When aircraft are cleared to enter Class B, ATC will guarantee separation between aircraft: This separation is not done on a workload permitting basis, it is guaranteed. This dramatically enhances the safety of aircraft operating in Class B, but ironically creates a thin layer of airspace for the smaller aircraft to share, which makes the Big Sky quite a bit smaller, and increases the probability that these smaller aircraft who are not in Class B will come close to one another.

Invisible Hands
So how about separating aircraft with a controller using radar? Air traffic control (ATC) can and does provide many valuable services to pilots by providing traffic advisories when aircraft get close or appear to be converging, but they are not an invisible hand that holds the aircraft and keeps them completely safe. Just because the pilot or flight crew of an aircraft is talking to a controller does not mean they are immune to mechanical problems, bird strikes, or midair collisions. The idea that ATC keeps aircraft safe, while not entirely a fantasy, is a belief that non-pilots may find comforting. Non-pilots need to remember that it's the pilot that is flying the aircraft and there is no invisible shield provided to aircraft that just happen to be talking to ATC.

Another misconception held by non-pilots has to do with flight plans. The idea that an aircraft is operating with an open flight plan is somehow safer than one operating without a flight plan may or may not be true. There basically are two types of flight plans: Instrument Flight Rules and Visual Flight Rules. Non-pilots need to know that the primary purpose of VFR flight plans is so that the appropriate authorities will be notified if you don't call in and close your flight plan when you arrive. In short, filing VFR flight plan helps ensure that if you crash and no one sees the crash, someone will eventually come looking for you.

Rules, Rules, Rules
Some reporters have claimed that aircraft which are not under ATC control are completely unregulated and not following any rules, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The aircraft that fly in any airspace must meet FAA airworthiness requirements including regular maintenance inspections with specific criteria.

The pilots that fly these aircraft must be certificated (we don't call them licenses in the US, but the media can't get that right either), they must hold a medical certificate, and they must meet recency experience to be able to act as pilot-in-command and to carry passengers.

The airspace in which these aircraft are operated have specific flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. And there are specific right-of-way rules that pilots follow when they see they are getting too close to one another.

To equate these areas of airspace not under air traffic control to the Wild West is uninformed and stupid.

Technology to the Rescue, sort of

Without radar, isn't there someway that technology can keep two aircraft from trying to occupy the same airspace? It's not as if no one has tried to create technology to do this, but the success has been mixed.

Large aircraft are required to have traffic collision and avoidance systems (TCAS), but even with TCAS these planes can run into one another.

Several similar systems are available for smaller aircraft, but they can be expensive and not every aircraft has them. One system is the FAA's Traffic Information System (TIS) where appropriately configured ground radar facilities upload traffic information to appropriately equipped aircraft. This is a common system in many newer general aviation aircraft, but many ATC radar facilities do not support TIS. Oh, and the FAA is planning to phase out TIS. Yes, you read that correctly. The reason is that another system is supposed to replace TIS, even though virtually no small aircraft out there are currently equipped to support the new system. Call me a curmudgeon, but that sounds about right for the FAA ...

Another system for smaller aircraft (that is also expensive) is an Traffic Advisory System (TAS) that actively interrogates other aircrafts' transponders, just like ATC's radar. These systems can be quite helpful, but with some aircraft (like the Cirrus) there is no way to mute the aural warnings and keep them from barking "Traffic! Traffic!" when you're trying to talk to or listen to ATC.

The last system for small aircraft that I'll mention is a class of portable devices that warn of nearby aircraft and are sometimes referred to as Portable Collision Avoidance Systems (PCAS). These devices are not perfect, but they help pilots have an idea when other aircraft are nearby, even if they don't tell you exactly where those aircraft are. As a side note, I always fly with a PCAS unit.

What's a Pilot to Do?

First, scroll back to the top and watch the YouTube video of the Hudson midair. I know it's scary, heartbreaking, and painful, but watch it nevertheless.

Hopefully that video has you in a mood to listen.

Remember that accident statistics indicate that midair collisions tend to occur on clear, sunny days and usually in the vicinity of airports of navigational transmitting stations.

Keep your head on a swivel when operating in crowded airspace.

Fly at an appropriate VFR altitude for your direction of flight. I see at least one pilot violating this simple safety rule every time I fly.

Avoid distractions, like unnecessary conversations or fiddling with your GPS or MP3 player.

Listen up! Poor radio phraseology and technique not only wastes everyone's time, it can actually threaten your life, the lives of your passengers, the lives of other pilots, and the lives of people on the ground.

If you have a traffic detection device, use it.

If you think this sort of collision can't happen to you, watch the video a few more times.

Don't Call Me at the Old Number

Never seen the 1950's Jimmy Stewart movie Harvey? Well you probably won't understand what the title of this post is referring to. Stewart plays Elwood P. Doud, a nice guy in every respect except for the fact that he has a friend - a 6 foot tall invisible rabbit named Harvey - which no one else can see. Several times in the film he hands his business card to someone, after crossing out something on it, and explaining he has a new phone number.

Many non-towered airports share the same common traffic advisory frequency and though this is an antiquated system, it mostly works. Where the system starts to break down is when the skies get crowded, like on weekends and holidays. The few CTAF frequencies there are get busy because many non-towered airports share one of two common CTAF frequencies - 122.8 or 122.7. Some new frequencies are beginning to be assigned, but the way pilots determine whether or not a radio call they just heard might affect them is the convention of prefacing all CTAF announcements with the name of the airport. So far so, so good.

Some of the airports within a 100 mile or so radius of the San Francisco Bay Area that share the frequency 122.8 include Halfmoon Bay, Sonoma Skypark, Ocean Ridge, Cloverdale, Rio Vista, Watts Woodland, Colusa County, Kingdon, Rancho Murietta, Westover, Oakdale, Turlock, Tracy, Los Banos, and Wattsonville. Many of these airports are infrequently used, but many are quite busy with training aircraft. It's not uncommon to hear pilots at other airports more than 50 miles away. I often hear jet traffic inbound to Truckee making CTAF announcements while high over the Sierra Mountains and wonder how far their transmissions might be heard. You don't have to be at a high altitude for your signal to carry. I remember making a CTAF call inbound to Visalia at 2000 feet and having someone in Byron (140 nm away) say "Hey John, is that you?"

When the frequencies get crowded, it can be hard to get a word in edgewise and when two aircraft try to transmit at the same time, you get a loud squeal and nobody hears anything. Radio communication, see-and-avoid procedures, and luck are what keep aircraft from hitting one another at these small airports. For their part the FAA has begun to assign new CTAF frequencies to many non-towered airports as a way to reduce congestion on the freqencies and this a great idea. In fact, Rio Vista just got a new frequency on March 1 of this year.

RIU 02/167 O88 COM CTAF/UNICOM 122.725 VICE 122.8 WEF 0903010800

Translate this NOTAM and you'll understand that the old CTAF frequency of 122.8 has been replaced with the frequency 122.725. Then you will hopefully mark up your VFR sectional and A/FD with the new frequency. Since Rio Vista is frequented by many of the part 141 training school aircraft in the area, this new frequency should help a lot. The problem is this NOTAM and the new frequency assignment seem to have been lost on about 50% of the pilots using the Rio Vista Airport. Either they have not gotten a pre-flight briefing since March 1 or they aren't reading the NOTAMs carefully.

I'm not instructing as much since last October, but I've still been to Rio Vista a dozen times since March and each time at least one aircraft is still using the old frequency. And why not? The current San Francisco VFR sectional still lists the frequency as 122.8 as do all the relevant Jeppesen VFR+GPS charts. Heck, even the latest Airport Facility Directory and all the latest NACO approach charts still list the CTAF as 122.8. Why this is I can only guess.

The next San Francisco VFR sectional is due out at the end of August of this year and perhaps the FAA's charting division wants to harmonize the release of that sectional with an updated A/FD and terminal procedures. A great idea to someone sitting at a desk, but not such a great idea for someone flying an aircraft into Rio Vista. I haven't noticed if the airport information signs on the Rio Vista airport actually reference the new frequency or not. I even emailed the folks at Airnav, but they said they don't update their online information until the FAA makes the changes, presumably to the A/FD. So even Airnav still lists the old, wrong frequency. What's a pilot or instructor to do?

My current, preferred procedure at Rio Vista is to tune the #1 radio to 122.725 and use that as the CTAF. Okay, so I'm a boy scout, but heck there's a NOTAM. I don't want to be called on the carpet for not complying with 14 CFR 91.103, but I don't have a death wish either. I tune the #2 radio to 122.8 (the old frequency) and monitor it, too. If I hear someone on the old frequency, I quickly transmit a courtesy explanation of the new frequency in use - if I can get a word in edgewise. Sometimes the old frequency is so busy with calls from other airports that listening to two frequencies becomes a distraction in and of itself. So this new frequency assignment was supposed to reduce radio conflicts and make things safer, but it has actually made things less safe.

One simple solution would have been to wait until a few days before the new San Francisco VFR sectional was to be published and then release the NOTAM. Now that the cat is out of the bag, at least the next versions of the A/FD and the terminal procedures should be updated. For completeness, another solution would be to release a NOTAM retracting the previous NOTAM. Yeah, that sounds about right for the FAA ...

My suggestion for pilots who want to avoid missing these important, but obscure NOTAMs is to get an online briefing from DUATS or DUAT and then use your browser's search feature to locate all the instances of the airport identifiers for places where you plan to operate. DUAT lets you request your briefing output as plain English, which also helps.



This yields:

RIU 02/167 O88 COMMUNICATIONS CTAF/UNICOM 122.725 INSTEAD/VERSUS 122.8 WITH EFFECT FROM OR EFFECTIVE FROM 0903010800

FltPlan has a nice way of formatting relevant NOTAMs for a particular airport that makes them stand out.



The sad fact is that there really is no substitute for wading through all the darn NOTAMs. For more information that you could ever possibly want on NOTAMs, read this. And even if it's a beautiful VFR day, get a briefing, read those NOTAMs, and keep your eyes peeled.

And don't call me at the old number.

Play Well With Others

I sometimes receive suggestions from readers about topics they'd like to see covered, which was the genesis for this post. If you have a suggestion, you can always email me at freightxdogxtalesxatxgmailzcom - just remove the Xs and replace the Z with a ".".

The FAA (and many instructors) do a good job of explaining what a complicated airspace system we have in the US, but we could do a better job of explaining why different classes of airspace exist. Pilots may be able to identify airspace classes on a chart, correctly describe the altitudes and lateral dimensions, and belch out the visibility and cloud clearance requirements by rote, but an understanding level of knowledge is more elusive. My concern today is simply Class E and G airspace, how VFR and IFR traffic can coexist at non-towered airports, how to make clear position reports whether you are VFR or IFR, and a common sense approach to resolving conflicts.

Why Class E?

All pilots need to remember that Class E airspace defines an area that may be shared by aircraft operating under instrument flight rules (IFR) and aircraft operating under visual flight rules (VFR) without an air traffic controller providing separation. What separates these aircraft is the see-and-avoid concept.

Class E airspace will surround non-towered airports with one or more instrument approach procedures and rural heliports that support emergency medical flight operations. Class E can also exist at airports that don't have continuous control tower operations: The airspace around the airport is Class D when the tower is open, but reverts to either Class E, Class G, or a combination of the two when the tower is closed. The best way to know is to check the Airport/Facility Directory entry for that airport.

IFR aircraft can operate in Class E in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), or they may be passing in and out of the clouds, so 14 CFR 91.155 requires pilots under VFR to comply with specific flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. This helps ensure that VFR and IFR aircraft have a fighting chance to see and avoid one another since ATC isn't there to play referee and point out traffic.

Class E Depiction

Class E airspace is explicitly depicted in a variety of ways on VFR charts, but it can also be implied. A dotted magenta line encloses areas of Class E airspace starting at the surface and extending up to 18,000 feet. Surface Class E is usually defined around an airport where the FAA definitely doesn't want scud-running VFR aircraft who might pose a hazard to aircraft on an instrument approach.

The magenta vignette encloses areas where Class E starts at 700 feet above ground level (AGL) up to 18,000 feet. It is also found around non-towered airports that have instrument approach procedures or EMS heliports. The shape of the magenta vignette roughly describes the instrument approach final approach course, the missed approach segment, and/or the instrument departure path for that airport. Beneath the 700 foot floor of Class E airspace is Class G, or uncontrolled airspace.

I'm leaving out some of the other ways Class E airspace is depicted and remember that Class G (or uncontrolled) airspace exists underneath the magenta vignette. Adjacent to the magenta dotted line or vignette depiction, Class G exists from the surface up to 1200 feet above ground level and above 1200 feet, Class E up to 18,000 feet is implied. During the daytime, Class G has much laxer requirements for VFR visibility and cloud clearance than Class E and this will figure into the discussion a bit later.

Two Cars in Kansas

Let's get back to IFR and VFR traffic sharing the same airspace. Let's say you are a VFR pilot inbound to Ukiah, California from the Southeast. You were receiving flight following from Oakland Center when, about 12 miles out Oakland Center tells you "radar service terminated, squawk VFR, frequency change approved." You've already listened to the surface weather and know there is a 3,000 foot broken ceiling with 5 miles visibility in haze. The winds are 310 at 12 knots and runway 33 appears to be indicated. The sky is clear in your current location, so you begin a VFR descent to get under the cloud layer ahead. Next, you change frequencies and make your first announcement on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF):

Ukiah traffic, Mooney 123, 10 miles Southeast, 4000 feet and descending, planning right traffic runway 33, Ukiah.

Unbeknownst to you, there is a freight aircraft that is also inbound to Ukiah from the Northwest, operating under Part 135, and on an instrument flight plan. A bit later, Oakland Center clears the freight aircraft for an instrument approach and ends with:

Boxhauler 333, radar service terminated, change to advisory frequency approved, report cancellation of IFR on this frequency or with flight service, traffic is a VFR Mooney inbound from the Southeast, good day.

Since you've changed frequency, you don't hear that exchange. You've maneuvered your Mooney under the overcast, you have 5 miles visibility and are 500' below the clouds when you hear:

Ukiah traffic, Boxhauler 333, 8 miles Northwest, 3500, localizer 15 approach, Ukiah.

Get the Flick

You need to quickly assemble a mental picture of your situation: The freight aircraft is inbound to the same airport from the opposite direction, they may still be in the clouds, and they're planning to land on the runway opposite the one you have chosen. They just changed to the common traffic frequency so they did not hear your initial CTAF announcement. What's more, they probably have a faster groundspeed than you. Who has right-of-way? What should you say? How do you work out the opposite runway conflict?

The regulations (14 CFR 91.113) say that whoever gets to the airport first and it at a lower altitude in a position to land has the right of way. What's more that aircraft can land on any runway they want because all runways are active. This is why I recommend avoiding the commonly used phrase "the active" at non-towered airports - all the runways are potentially active.

Some pilots mights say Ukiah is an "uncontrolled airport," but that's a misnomer. It's certainly not in uncontrolled airspace since Class E extends all the way to the surface. More importantly, there is control at all non-towered airports. It's called self-control on the part of the pilots operating there, whether they are VFR or IFR. The keys to working out traffic pattern conflicts are clear communication, common sense, and courteous cooperation.

Where you At?

Clear communication using accepted phraseology is a good first step. Instrument-rated pilots, you can mention the instrument approach you are flying, but it won't be of any use to non-instrument-rated pilots or to pilots who are unfamiliar with the approaches to the airport. Reporting your position using approach fix names is just as meaningless. So whether VFR or IFR, keep it simple:

• The airport name
• Your aircraft model and tail number (or company and flight number)
• Distance and cardinal direction from the airport
• Your intentions.

Remember there could also be aircraft operating at a non-towered airport that don't have a radio or there could be an aircraft with a radio that has failed, so keep your eyes peeled for other traffic and expect the unexpected.

Speak Up

When you hear another aircraft make a CTAF announcement and realize there's potential conflict, that's your cue to say something. In our scenario, after you hear the freight aircraft make their announcement, you might say:

Ukiah traffic, Mooney 123 is 4 miles Southeast at 2500, planning right traffic, runway 33, looking for Boxhauler, Ukiah.

You can ask other aircraft if they are still in the clouds, what their ground speed is, or anything else that will provide you with the verbal equivalent of TCAS. If the other aircraft is still in IMC, you could ask them to say their intentions.

Ukiah traffic, Mooney 123, 3 mile forty-five, right traffic 33, the field is VFR, winds favoring runway 33, Boxhauler, say intentions, Ukiah.

Share Your Toys

Pilots at non-towered operations should have the same goal that air traffic controllers have: The safe and orderly flow of traffic. If another aircraft is faster and it's safe to do so, let them go first. Fly a wide downwind, slow down, or maneuver to give them time to land and clear the runway.

Instrument pilots, remember that you don't own the sky just because you are on an instrument flight plan or flying a practice approach. And remember too that not everyone understands instrument procedures and terms.

On the flips side, I've flown a lot of practice approaches with instrument students into non-towered airport and I can sympathize. When I hear someone inbound on an approach and they say they would like to circle in a non-VFR manner or do a straight-in approach, I try to accommodate their request if I can do so safely. Widening my traffic pattern or slowing down might cost me, what, two or three minutes of my time?

VFR pilots remember that you need to be at least 500 feet beneath the clouds in Class E airspace. Practicing touch-and-goes at a non-towered airport when the ceiling is low is risky business: Don't do it. Flying a non-standard 690 foot AGL traffic pattern so that you are just outside of Class E, technically VFR, and legal is also a poor choice.

Safe operations at non-towered airports depend on good radio technique, assembling a mental picture of what is happening, and being cooperative. Adhering to the rules also helps, but rules can't cover every eventuality. There's no replacement for courtesy and common sense. Being sharp and on-the-ball helps, too.

Resolutions

Happy New Year!
I'm not big on New Year's resolutions and no, I haven't resolved to hike Kilimanjaro, or take a gourmet cooking course, or learn a new language. I tend to resolve to do things on a daily and weekly basis rather than every year. And who really cares what my resolutions are? I think of resolutions as being a private affair between you and your conscience. If telling others what you resolve to do will help keep you on track, then by all means do it. However you make your resolutions, here are the top five things I hope pilots out there will consider adding to their resolutions.

Radio Communication
Self-critique and then clean-up your radio phaseology. Lose the commonly used, and unnecessary words and phrases, like "roger," "with you," "clear of the active," and "any traffic in the area please advise." At the very least, resolve to say "traffic in sight" and "negative contact" in response to ATC's traffic advisories. For some inspiration on how to critique and improve your own radio performance, try reading this excellent post at the Flying Penguin about a controller's quest to identify and break his own undesirable radio communication habits.

Non-Towered Airport Operations
Review this advisory circular and the AIM, then practice what they preach. One example: Entering midfield on downwind at a non-towered airport is often taught to pilots as aiming for the middle of the runway and it's dumb, dumb, dumb. This procedure usually ends up with you entering the downwind leg exactly where other aircraft will be turning crosswind to downwind. Instead, aim for the arrival end of the runway, you'll enter downwind at midfield, and we'll all breathe a little easier.

Handle Your Aircraft with Care
Okay, it might not actually be your aircraft, but you're the pilot-in-command, right? Nothing is more unprofessional than mistreating an aircraft and if you tend to be ham-handed, the first step is recognizing it. Why are you slamming the doors, man-handling the controls, and moving the throttle and mixture like you're playing a video game? None of this is necessary and breaking things will only increase your cost of flying. If the engine needs oil, add some oil. Oil is cheap, engine overhauls and forced landings are expensive. Don't leave your oily paper towel in the seat pocket! You're not doing the next pilot a favor, nobody wants your oily rag, and it's a fire hazard. Walk to the trash can and throw it away. When your flight is completed, take your stuff with you including your trash (and any trash left behind by the last pilot). Instead of hurrying away from the aircraft as if it were about to explode, clean the windshield, install the control lock, lock the doors and secure the plane. You may not think any of this matters, but other pilots are watching and assessing your behavior. Do the right thing and set a good example.

Get a Preflight Briefing
Don't just "get the weather," get an official briefing through FSS, DUAT, DUATS or another approved source. It's not easy, but carefully read the Notices to Airmen that affect your flight. Check for Temporary Flight Restrictions, too. This is an investment in your own safety as well as the safety of your passengers and everyone else.

Get Regular Recurrent Training
One of the safety factors that distinguishes commercial aircraft operations from GA is recurrent training. If it's been a while since you did some training with an instructor, it's time. You can do the Wings program, do practice approaches with another pilot or an instructor, get some instruction in a simulator, or design your own recurrent training program. Recurrent training should also include a review of relevant rules and regulations, aircraft systems, and emergency procedures. If you don't already do so, subscribe to one of the many excellent aviation publications out there. Some, like Callback and the NTSB site are free.

Best wishes to all for a safe, prosperous, and productive New Year!

Practice Area Ahead

It's easy to recognize inexperienced air traffic controllers on the radio, just as it's easy to recognize a student pilot on frequency because student pilots and controllers-in-training have a lot in common. The student pilot is learning to control their aircraft in a safe manner while simultaneously talking and coordinating with ATC, but they don't have much experience. The new controller is figuring out how to manage aircraft in their airspace and on their taxiways, learning to be the voice of authority that pilots will listen to and respect, and they don't have much experience either.

As a flight instructor, I can relate to the controller-in-training situation because they are often working with another controller who is acting as their instructor.

If you fly regularly and talk to ATC or if you read any of the blogs by FAA air traffic control specialists, it's pretty clear that the FAA is in a tight spot. Experienced controllers are retiring at an pace never seen before, the FAA can't seem to hire and train new controllers fast enough, and the ones that are hired have their hands full: Low pay, long hours, and a lot to learn in a short time. In spite of this situation, ATC consistently provides excellent service the majority of the time, even while showing the ropes to new controllers.

Most pilots have overheard a controller interacting with an inexperienced or a less-than-competent pilot, trying to work out some issue or another. Usually the controller is just trying to figure out the pilot's intentions. When a controller is patient, relaxed, and friendly, the end result is more likely to be positive for all concerned. When a controller is under stress and gets impatient, rude, or angry, the end result is not so good: Pilots walk away with a bad feeling that can foster an adversarial relationship with ATC rather than a sense of partnership. The same thing can happen when pilots are surly toward controllers, but this is not saying anything new.

My philosophy as a flight instructor is to let the pilot I'm instructing make some mistakes on the radio, up to a point. I want my students to be confident that if they get confused, they will able to work things out with ATC. When a controller's workload is high, I'm not bashful about intervening on the radio to prevent needless confusion and mayhem that may only serve to increase the controller's stress level. For example, I will respond to an ATC instruction when the frequency is crowded and the pilot I'm instructing does not respond in a timely fashion. This gives a positive example to the pilot of how to respond promptly while preserving the controller's tempo and pacing.

I regularly hear student pilots or pilots with little experience whose radio technique can only be described as awful and there are two basic reasons: Flight instructors who pass on their own sloppy technique and certificated pilots who know better, but are out of practice or simply content to be sloppy. There are plenty of good sources of information on the internet about aviation radio technique and I've even written about this topic a bit in the past. Based on some of the pilots I've heard out there, it's obvious that many flight instructors aren't providing enough training in radio communications.

Instructors need to set high standards for radio communications and ensure that students meet those standards, especially before conferring solo privileges. A lot of radio practice and drilling can be done on the ground, outside of the aircraft, without noise and distraction, and without burning any fuel or wasting ATC's time. Pilots who fly infrequently can study and practice radio communications by simply listening to ATC chatter in their off time. Internet sites like Live ATC let you listen to ATC on your computer, but remember that you'll hear bad radio technique mixed in with the good: Emulate the good technique, recognize and eschew the bad.

With all the controllers-in-training out there, an experienced pilot or instructor often finds themselves being handled by an inexperienced controller. Just the other day, a tower controller asked us to expedite our exit from the runway for traffic on a half mile final. I'm all for helping out controllers and other pilots, but in this case the controller had violated an unspoken rule: She made this request just as we entered the landing flare and before any of our wheels had actually touched pavement. To make matters worse, I was trying to help the pilot solidify his landing technique in a new, and heavily-loaded, high-performance Cessna. I thought about giving some on-the-air feedback about her timing, but I just bit my tongue and hoped that an instructor was standing by on the other side of the radio.

Like pilots, experienced controllers can get sloppy, too. Flying practice approaches with a student the other day, she checked in with her altitude and asked for a practice ILS approach. The controller gave her a heading to fly and a climb to 3000 feet. I had to opine that 3000' would put us in Class Bravo, that we were currently VFR, and the controller had not explicitly cleared us to enter Bravo. So she asked the controller to verify she was cleared to enter Class Bravo and he said something like "If I give you an altitude in Bravo, you are cleared to go there ..." I winced and said "Unfortunately he's wrong, he should say the words 'cleared to enter class Bravo' and you were right to ask for clarification."

I explain to instrument rating candidates the procedure that controllers are supposed to follow for RNAV approaches, but some controllers don't seem to be up to speed - they'll vector you to a point inside the Intermediate Fix rather than clearing you direct to the Initial Approach Fix or the Intermediate Fix. Frankly, I don't think many controllers out there have any idea of the level of sophistication that exists in newer GA aircraft and that pilots of these aircraft can fly autopilot coupled approaches that can join the final approach course more accurately than any vectoring the controller might be willing to offer. Air traffic control's lack of understanding of RNAV approach procedures (combined with other mistakes) have contributed to at least one fatal accident that I know of in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I teach instrument candidates to refer to an RNAV (GPS) approach as an RNAV approach, even though many controllers still refer to these as GPS approaches. I can appreciate how changes to en route, approach and departure procedures might be confusing, especially if controllers (and pilots) are not kept up to speed. Both the FAA Order 7110.65S and the Instrument Procedures Handbook state that “GPS” is not included in the ATC approach clearance for these procedures. It's a small thing that a lot of the controllers and pilots out there can't seem to get right.

When considering the separate, but intersecting worlds that pilots and controllers inhabit, it would be ideal if both sides were to develop some understanding of the other's world. Pilots are certainly free to read Order 7110.65S and controllers could be encouraged to ride along in an aircraft from time to time. I can't get any good data on the percentage of controllers who also hold pilot certificates, but when I did a tour of Oakland Center many years ago I recall being told it was only around 20%.

I recall when doing a tour of the KPAO tower that same year that tower controllers were encouraged to do annual jumpseat rides so they could observe what goes on in a cockpit. My understanding is that this practice stopped after 9/11 due to security concerns and a lack of cooperation between the various agencies involved. Too bad that approach controllers don't get to ride along in a GA airplane and appreciate the results of a slam-dunk vector to an approach into a busy airport.

Operation Raincheck, which encouraged pilots to visit ATC control towers, TRACON, and ARTCC facilities now seems to accomplished at the discretion of the facility's management. Some facilities still encourage these visits, but they are not nearly as widespread as they used to be. That's a shame because it allowed pilots to listen in with a controller and see all the stuff they were doing while simultaneously talking to aircraft crews. I sat in with a center controller covering Northern California and when a pilot requested an IFR clearance, departed and then cancelled IFR the controller muttered something like "I don't know what that was all about, it's VFR in Redding." When I suggested that the pilot might be practicing his IFR techniques in VFR conditions so he'll not be rusty when he needs to use them for real, the controller said "Oh ... you're probably right ..."

Just a few things to think about while you ply the skies in a small aircraft, or sit in front of a radar screen, or peer out the window of a tower cab.

Caribbean Conclusions

At the end of any trip comes the inevitable realizations about lessons learned as well as the comparisons and contrasts. Before I get to that, I'd like to ask readers who find my blog useful to consider making a donation to support my continued efforts. Over the last two-plus years, I've been writing regular blog entries that I hope are informative, useful, and entertaining. Writing takes time and, well, time is money.

The amount you choose to donate is up to you and donating is easy: Use the PayPal donate button on the upper right side, though if you are using a blog reader that button might not appear. Just visit the blog directly and you'll see it. Click the PayPal button and you can securely use any credit card or your PayPal account, if you have one. To those who have contributed in the past, thank you for continuing to support my efforts.

After 4 weeks "on the road," here are my observations about radio work, position reporting, paperwork, fueling, immigration/customs, weather briefings, airport security, and GA flying versus airline flying.

Aviation Phraseology

Purists insist that rules about communication need to be followed, and to a degree they are correct. I consider myself to be a bit of a purist, by the way. Rules and accepted phrases are intended to allow pilots and controllers to communicate efficiently and prevent mistakes, but rules can't cover every situation. In spite of efforts to standardize what is said on the radio, there will be local variations and spur of the moment improvisations because rules can't cover everything. For pilots who intend to travel to the Caribbean, here are my suggestions for radio communications.

If you don't understand what a controller has said because of their accent or phraseology, don't delay responding while you try to puzzle out what they said. Instead, promptly reply with something like "I'm sorry, could you say again please, slowly ..." If you think you know what has been communicated, but are not sure, then by all means paraphrase what you have heard and don't fret too much about phraseology. Remember that the goal is communication - the exchange of meaningful information - not a stylized dance.

If you are a U.S. pilot, get used to including November in your callsign. The usual practice in the U.S. is to omit the November part of your callsign when you include your aircraft manufacturer or model. Outside the U.S., the November prefix needs to be included. You may find the habit of omitting November to be as tough to break as I did.

There often will be no radar service in the areas in which you have choosen to fly, so brush up on position reporting. A abbreviated position report format is PTA-Next, which stands for:

Position (name of the fix)
Time (in Zulu)
Altitude (or flight level)
Next fix and your estimate for reaching that fix.

This is especially useful when handed off from one ATC facility to another, for example:

Raizet approach, November 1234 Delta, MEDUS, level niner zero, 1933 Zulu, estimating TASAR at 1950 Zulu

Approaching a terminal area that has no radar, expect to be asked to report your position relative to a VOR or NDB:

Say your distance and radial from Alpha November Uniform VOR

You can preempt this request by offering it when you check in:

V.C. Bird approach, November 1234 Delta, level niner zero, 25 miles out, ANU 192 radial, information Foxtrot

During pre-flight planning and while en route, pay particular attention to FIR (flight information region) boundaries. They are depicted on Jepp and FAA IFR low altitude en route charts as well as on World Aeronautical charts. You can be prepared to provide an estimate to the FIR boundary by including the fix that falls on the boundary in your GPS flight plan, if you are GPS equipped.

You will probably be asked to "Report your estimate crossing the boundary" or "Report crossing the boundary," which mean when you think you'll cross the FIR boundary or when you are actually crossing it, respectively. Below is an excerpt from the Caribbean Low Altitude En Route Chart and you can see the blue dotted line representing FIR boundary around the Turks and Caicos. I've circled MICAS, a waypoint you might enter into your GPS flight plan if you were inbound on the airway A555.


Here are a few phrases that I got used to hearing and their U.S. equivalent:

"November 34 Delta, you are radar identified" = Radar contact.
"Say your leaving level" = Say altitude or flight level you are descending through.
"Say your passing level" = Say altitude or flight level you are climbing through.
"Backtrack runway zero seven" = Backtaxi on runway seven.
"November 34 Delta, copy ATC clearance." = IFR clearance available, advise ready to copy (Be prepared to do this while taxiing).
"I'll call you back" = Standby

Paperwork, Flight Plans, Customs

Become familiar with ICAO flight plan forms. They aren't difficult, they're just different. Both DUAT and DUATS offer HTML version of these that you can experiment with, but remember that flight plans originating outside the U.S. and its territories will need to be filed with the local ATC authority. This means you'll have to use the paper version and fax it or hand-carry it to the appropriate office.

Below is an excerpt of a DUAT ICAO flight plan form. When you specify your aircraft's equipment, start with S (for standard) and then include every other type of capability your aircraft has. The Duchess I was flying was GPS equipped with two VOR receivers, two glideslope receivers, and DME so the acronym I came up with was SD GLO. The RMK section is where you can enter remarks and I always put ADCUS, which is supposed to indicate to ATC that they should "advise customs" at your destination on your behalf prior to your arrival. Prior notification of customs is a requirement for all countries.

The part of the ICAO flight plan that references dinghy is referring to what you might know as a life raft. You'll need to put the number of life rafts, the number of people the rafts can hold, whether or not they are covered, their color, and the survival equipment it includes. Next comes emergency radio equipment, survival equipment and life jackets.

When flying in the Caribbean you are required to carry a life raft and one life jacket for each occupant. Most commercial life raft you can purchase come with a survival kit that includes signal flares and other equipment. I strongly recommend that you also have a hand-held, waterproof VHF transceiver and a 406 Mhz GPS personal emergency locator beacon. Lastly, enter your fuel endurance in hours and minutes.


Learn about General Declarations or gendecs. You can download a PDF version here. Here's an example of how you might fill one out. Be sure you have at least four copies of your inbound gendec when arriving and four copies of your outbound when departing.

Customs Handling

Though it can be costly, you can save a lot of time and hassle by contracting with a handling service if your destination is at a large airport. The handler will expedite the processing of your gendecs, get you through immigration/customs, direct you to where you pay landing and departure fees, and arrange re-fueling. Handling service charges range from $100US to as much as $250US and you can usually find the appropriate phone numbers in the Bahamas and Caribbean Pilot's Guide.

There is generally less hassle and less waiting at smaller airports of entry where you may be able to figure out your own handling without much trouble.

Landing fees and taxes are usually not payable with a credit card. Some offices accept the EC (Eastern Caribbean dollar), others want Euros or U.S. dollars, so call ahead or just always have plenty of cash with you. Larger airports usually have ATMs that may allow you to obtain the local currency.

Fuel

Fuel can be very expensive and at many smaller airports, 100 low-lead aviation gasoline is often not available. Again, check the excellent Bahamas and Caribbean Pilot's Guide for phone numbers and details.

Where fuel is available, credit cards may not be accepted and you may have to pay in cash. U.S. dollars seem to be preferred or, in some cases, required. Phone ahead to be sure fuel is available and to learn of the payment methods accepted.

I recommend supervising the re-fueling process. Afterward, always check the fuel quality carefully. I found traces of water and debris after being refueled in a couple of places. I recommend the GAT jar for sumping fuel because you can easily drain a substantial amount for a more thorough inspection.

Weather Briefing and Thunderstorms

Detailed weather data can be hard to come by in many parts of the Caribbean. METARs and TAFs (airport weather observations and forecasts) can be had through a variety of sources, but the forecasts can be annoyingly vague. Pilot reports and winds aloft forecast seem to be rare or non-existant. Here's what a DUAT output looked like for part of my trip. Not much information, is it?

Nexrad images are available for Puerto Rico, but other than the long range base reflectivity product there are no other weather radar products that I could find. Various satellite images are available and there is a high level prog chart that gives you an overall idea for the Caribbean weather patterns.

Many airports do not broadcast any surface weather conditions over the radio, but some do so over the voice portion of a VOR. The tower (if there is one) will provide you with the conditions, otherwise you are on your own.

I found most thunderstorms to be isolated and easy to see and avoid, but embedded thunderstorms are possible. The XM weather feature on our hand-held Garmin 496 quit working after we left Providenciales and didn't work again until we returned to the U.S. mainland. Pilots of GA aircraft without on-board radar need to weigh their options and risks carefully. If you don't have radar or a strike finder and you can't stay in visual conditions while you maneuver around build-ups, you probably shouldn't be flying. Flying early in the morning can help you avoid most thunderstorms. If you're faced with an approaching thunderstorm, delaying your departure by only a few hours or a day may be all that's needed to substantially reduce your risk.

Get used to writing down two altimeter settings and taking note of the transition altitude for the area in which you are flying. You'll use QNH when you're below the transition altitude. Above the transition altitude you'll refer to your altitude as a flight level (or just level) and set QFE on your altimeter. Some ATC facilities see that you are a U.S. registered aircraft and provide the altimeter settings in inches of mercury as a courtesy, but don't count on it. Some altimeters display millibars and inches of mercury in separate Kollsman windows and you can set the G1000 preferences to millibars. Otherwise, you should have a millibars to inches conversion table handy.

Airport Security

I don't recall seeing armed police presence at any of the Caribbean airports I visited, save the ones in U.S. territories. Another difference between U.S. CBP and immigration/customs in Caribbean countries is the manner in which you are treated. In Caribbean countries, the authorities may search your bags, examine your travel documents, and ask you questions about your travel plans, but the people doing this are not armed and only once (in Trinidad) did I feel there might be a presumption that I was guilty until proven innocent. The U.S. TSA posts signs promising to treat you with dignity and concern, but the very fact they have to post such a sign seems intended to prepare you for just the opposite. In the countries to which I traveled, I was generally treated with respect by people who felt no need to post a sign saying that this would be the case.

Outside the U.S., pilots are referred to as "captain," a title of respect that recognizes you are in command of an aircraft. I felt U.S. Customs and Border Protection and TSA officers simply saw me as a potential threat. When they determined that I wasn't, they just dismissed me and went on to the next potential "target." Be prepared for culture shock if you re-enter the U.S. or one if its territories after spending a bunch of time in other parts of the Caribbean.

My comments and opinions are based on my firsthand experiences and it is not my intent to stir patriotic fervor or righteous indignation in my U.S. readers. If you don't like what I've said here, by all means feel free to disagree. Remember that the U.S. is (or at least was) based on the freedom to dissent, not the requirement to conform to one accepted viewpoint.

Flying Yourself versus The Airlines

Piloting an aircraft through Caribbean airspace will take longer and cost more than being transported in an airliner, but the GA route is a heck of a lot more fun and, in some cases, substantially faster.

Take our return flight from V.C. Bird airport in Antigua to San Juan, Puerto Rico on American Airlines. We arrived at 1pm for a 3:05 departure. We allowed plenty of time to get through the lines for departure tax (yes, there's a tax even for airline passengers), immigration, and security. Then we waited about an hour and a half before they began boarding the aircraft.

Near as I can tell from the cabin announcement, the 757's APU was deferred (inoperative) and we required an "air cart" (a supply of high pressure air) to start the first engine. Getting the air cart took about 30 minutes and while we waited on the ramp in the blazing sun and high humidity, we essentially had no air conditioning. The cabin crew was great. They opened a couple of doors for better ventilation and the flight crew did their best to keep us up-to-date on what was happening.

Once the air cart arrived and the engines were finally started, we had air conditioning and there was more bad news. We were already over 45 minutes late for our departure when the captain informed us there would be an indeterminate delay: The tower had informed them "something was on the runway." No one knew exactly what was on the runway, but we sat and waited, and waited, and waited. After nearly two hours of waiting on the ramp, we finally made our way to the runway for takeoff. During this time, the cabin crew handed out ice water, even though no refreshments were scheduled for what should have been a short 45 minute flight.

We never found out what was on the runway or why it took so long to clear, but I have a theory. I had landed on the same runway the day before and had noticed that two large, parallel strips of pavement at the threshold had recently been surfaced. On the landing rollout the previous evening, I could smell the fresh asphalt and oil. In addition, there was no white center line stripe for the first 900 feet or so. My theory, and it's just that, was some of that fresh pavement buckled or otherwise deteriorated. This is a plausable theory since a Virgin Atlantic 747 and some other pretty big aircraft had arrived earlier in the day. When we took the runway for takeoff, I noticed that a new white stripe had been painted since I landed the evening before.

We finally arrived at San Juan a little past 7pm, over 3 hours late. On the way, there was a loud, troubling, low-frequency buzz coming from the left engine. It changed with the power settings and was very pronounced at takeoff and climb thrust, but diminished at cruise and went away almost entirely during descent. Departing the aircraft after landing, I passed the head flight attendant and mentioned "I hope the flight crew knows about that nasty low-frequency vibration on the number one engine." He gave me a sort of dismissive smile and said "I'm sure they do, sir, I'm sure they do."

Had we flown the Duchess to San Juan, we could have arrived at the airport at noon and it is very likely that by 1pm, we would have finished the preflight, had our gendec paperwork, and our flight plan filed. The flight to San Juan would have taken about 1 hour and 45 minutes - arriving at approximately 2:45pm. After landing, clearing immigration, customs, and paying our landing fees would have taken about 45 minutes, putting us curbside at about 3:30pm which would have been 25 minutes past the scheduled departure time of our airline flight. The Duchess would have arrived nearly an hour earlier that the scheduled airline arrival at San Juan or more than 4 hours before our delayed arrival.

But you ask, how could the Duchess have departed if there was something on the runway? Well it turns out the tower was allowing intersection departures on the runway, but the takeoff distance remaining was too short for a 757. So the Duchess could have beat the airlines handily, albeit at a higher cost. Of course the airlines have more sophisticated equipment that would have made the flight safer had the weather been bad.

There ends my Caribbean Conclusions. I hope my little travelogue has been informative, interesting, and that it may encourage other U.S. pilots to explore the Caribbean themselves.

Speak Up

On February 1, 2008, about 1748 eastern standard time, a Cessna Citation 525, N102PT, crashed in a wooded area in West Gardiner, Maine. The private/instrument-rated pilot and one passenger received fatal injuries; the airplane was destroyed. The flight was operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for a flight from Augusta, Maine to Lincoln, Nebraska. The flight had originated from the Augusta State Airport about 1745.

When I heard the news about this crash and learned the pilot hailed from the Bay Area, I was fairly certain I had seen the pilot and her aircraft. And it turns out I was right.

A Citation piloted by a woman regularly departed Oakland on runway 33 and every time I saw her depart, I shook my head and wondered "Why?" Not only is Runway 33 only 3,372 feet long, a jet departing that runway violates the airport's noise abatement procedure which requests that all jet aircraft depart runway 29. But runway 29 is a much longer taxi from the North Field and one can only assume that this pilot wanted as little delay as possible. Runway 27R or 27L would require only a minute more of taxiing, they are significantly longer, and they would have been better, slightly more quiet, and certainly safer choices.

Since this pilot departed runway 33 regularly, more than once I thought about saying something to her over the ground frequency. But I regret to say I never did.

Representatives of the fixed base operator (FBO) at Augusta State Airport stated that the airplane was fueled and moved from the ramp into the FBO's hangar earlier that morning at the pilot's request. However, the hanger is utilized by a part 121 operator that provides service for that area. The operator canceled its 1630 flight due to the weather conditions and needed the hangar to house its airplane. The Citation was taken out of the hangar and moved back to the ramp area about that time. The pilot was informed of this possibility at time of the request and she stated that she understood that the other customer had priority over the hangar space.

Freezing rain and a cold-soaked aircraft are a deadly combination that pilots need to take seriously. It seems like departing without any ground de-icing in weather conditions that have resulted in a part 121 flight being cancelled would be unthinkable.

A person identifying herself as the pilot of N102PT called a flight service station at 1701 to file an instrument flight plan from Augusta, Maine to Lincoln, Nebraska, The pilot received a standard weather briefing for the flight at that time. Witnesses stated that the pilot arrived at the airport about 1715, at which time she and the passenger loaded their personnel effects into the airplane, returned a rental car, and paid for the fuel. She and the passenger then boarded the airplane. Shortly after, about 1730, the airplane's engines were started and the airplane was observed taxing. The FBO representative heard the pilot's announcements over the radio in the FBO. He also noticed the airplane was not on the taxiway, but on the grass area on the south side of the asphalt taxiway. At that time the ground was covered with snow and ice.

For the past hour and a half, the weather condition had turned from light snow to freezing rain, and ice was observed covering the cars in the parking lot. The FBO representative noted the pilot did not activate the airport's taxi and runways lights via the common airport frequency radio channel. It was observed that the airplane taxied through a ditch, which was covered with ice and snow. The airplane's engines were heard at a high rate of power about this time. It was later discovered that the airplane's left main tire broke through the ice and became stuck in the ditch. The airplane continued on the grass area after the high engine power was heard. The FBO representative heard the pilot announce the wrong runway (runway 35) that she was planning to depart from. The FBO representative turned on the runway and taxi lights after hearing the incorrect runway announcement. The pilot later announced a change of departure from runway 35 to runway 17, while the airplane was observed back taxing on runway 26 onto taxiway "C" Charlie. About 1745 the announcement for departure from runway 17 was heard; the FBO representative observed the departure at that time.

Any pilot who has flown for very long has experienced a bad day and some pilots have a three strikes rule. It goes something like this: You arrive to find something wrong, say your aircraft has a dead battery. Strike one. You have a mechanic replace the battery, but now you find that the weather is worse than forecast. In fact, the forecast seems to be way off. Strike two.You're ready to call Clearance Delivery when you realize that the GPS database in your plane is out of date. Strike three. You choose to cancel the flight.

After takeoff, the pilot contacted the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) and reported that she was at 1,000 feet, climbing to 10,000 feet. ATC requested the pilot to squawk ident on the transponder. Radar contact was made with the airplane when it was about 2 miles southwest of the Augusta State Airport. About one minute later, the pilot declared an emergency and stated, "We've got an attitude indicator failure". About seven seconds later, the pilot announced over the frequency they were not certain which way they were turning. Radar contact was lost shortly after that.

About 1749, local authorities received several 911 calls from residents reporting a possible airplane crash. A short time later, the airplane wreckage was located about 6 miles south-southwest of the Augusta State Airport. One witness stated to local law enforcement authorities that he saw an airplane fly overhead at a low altitude and moments later observed a large explosion off in the distance.

Let's say you are about to take flight, but you find yourself deep in the count. Maybe you are so committed, so determined to go, that you can't stop yourself. Maybe there's another pilot who's observed your situation, they key the mic and suggest "It looks like it's not your day. Why don't you delay your departure until the weather improves?"

Maybe that other pilot is you.

A Preview of NextGen

Over the last year or so an aerial survey company has been threatening to use me as a backup pilot. I had some meetings with a manager, I know one of their pilots and one of their photographers, but nothing ever seemed to come of it. The last news was that I would need 25 hours in the type of aircraft they use or their insurance wouldn't cover me. The implication being that I should get 25 hours in a Cessna 206 somewhere else and then let them know. I thought about explaining to the them that aviation underwriters, when presented with a detailed snapshot of a pilot's experience, will often relent on the popular 25 hours in type requirement. While I appreciate that low time-in-type is a good predictor of possible trouble, it is only one facet and must be considered with overall experience, currency, and level of experience With the pay working out to be tens of dollars an hour and a full teaching schedule that pays better on a busy day, I decided to just let the whole thing slip into the background.

Late last week the weather was marginal in the morning and it was obvious that the forecast was out of alignment with reality. A fairly thick stratus layer was covering the Bay Area and though the forecasters were adamant that the clouds would mix out by midday, I was fairly certain the clearing was going to happen closer to sunset, if at all. I was surprised to get a call from the pilot with the aforementioned company asking me if I wanted to do a check out flight in their aircraft. The weather was not going to allow them to fly their mission and I had no lessons scheduled until the end of the day, so I decided to give it a shot.

After checking the weather, it appeared we could cross the Oakland Hills to the east while remaining VFR under the clouds. The plan would be to get to the Livermore Valley where we'd find high enough ceilings to allow some basic air work. After departing and heading to Lake Chabot, the wisdom of this plan seemed dubious: The cloud ceilings were lower than the surface observations had led us to believe. The result was that this check out flight was high workload since I had to remain VFR under the clouds, look for other aircraft doing exactly what we were doing, constantly evaluate my altitude and terrain clearance, and talk to NorCal. As we made our way east we discovered the cloud ceiling over the Livermore Valley was also lower than anticipated, but it appeared to get better in the next valley to the east. Ah, clearer skies ahead! The siren song heard by all pilots who engage in scud-running.

My newly formed plan was to skirt Livermore's class D airspace to the north, but the ceilings were lower to the north and the terrain clearance was not to my liking. I asked NorCal to terminate flight following with the intention of talking to the Livermore tower to get permission to transition their airspace. So imagine my surprise when NorCal told me "You're below my radar coverage so contact NorCal on 125.35 and ask him for a frequency change." What's up with that! I quickly changed frequency, checked in, and immediately asked to terminate flight following, all the while creeping closer to the lateral limit of class D. The new NorCal controller went through the "Radar services terminated, squawk 1200, frequency change approved" mantra in a slow and leisurely fashion, adding "you should contact Livermore tower, you're pretty close to their airspace." Tell me something I don't know ...

The Livermore tower was helpful, obliquely indicating I was in their airspace at the time I called, but my transition was approved. We finally made it across the Altamont Pass where we could climb a bit higher. Next we discovered the winds were howling at all the nearby airports. I settled on Stockton to do a few touch and goes. My landings were not exactly up to my standards. The crosswind component and gusting certainly didn't help, but no animals or airplanes were harmed.

Returning to Oakland, I found the ceilings north of Livermore were high enough and I skirted their airspace. The twist here was that NorCal hadn't given me a frequency change to the next controller. I queried them about this and was told "You're below radar coverage so expect a hand off in 5 miles. If you lose radio contact, try NorCal on 125.35." Then the controller got very busy with a bunch of pilots doing practice approaches and I couldn't get a word in edgewise. As I approached 5 miles from Lake Chabot, I made an executive decision, changed to 125.35, and checked in. The new controller seemed to be expecting me and after just a few moments, handed me off to Oakland Tower.

Talk about do-it-yourself ATC! Is this what we'll get when the Home Depot business model is ultimately applied to ATC?

Head in the IFR Game

Several months ago I suggested some concise ways to check in with ATC while flying IFR. Lately I've been flying with several new instrument students and it occurred to me to pass on some general suggestions for radio technique as it applies to IFR flying. Some of the suggestions that follow are particular to practice approaches, which in many ways are more complicated that flying a scheduled IFR flight under part 121 or 135. The underlying goal is always to make communication with ATC as efficiently as possible and in the process, reduce your own workload while flying single-pilot under the hood. If you don't give the controller all the information they need, they will start asking you for that information, which can turn into a big distraction.

Cessna 3 Foxtrot Echo, fly heading 240, maintain three thousand three hundred until established, cleared ILS 27 right.

This may sound like a lot, so make things easy on yourself by reading back the clearance and put your tail number last. Many pilots make things more difficult by reading back their tail number first.

Cessna 3 Foxtrot Echo, turn right 240, maintain ... ah ... please repeat the altitude to maintain?

Putting your tail number first can interfere with your short-term memory register just enough that you forget parts of the instruction you're trying to repeat. I've seen this countless times. So repeat the instructions and then just read the tail number off the placard on your instrument panel. This is a great way to reduce your workload, especially when you fly different aircraft on a regular basis.

Heading 240, three thousand three hundred until established, cleared ILS two seven right, Cessna 3 Foxtrot Echo.

When you are handed off by one controller to another frequency, don't check in with just your tail number.

Oakland Center, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo.

If you do this, the new controller might not recognize your tail number (even though they accepted the handoff) and think you are making a courtesy call: You want to request services, but you are not yet in the system with an assigned squawk code. Instead, check-in with your full tail number (minus the November) and your altitude. If you're checking in with the approach controller who will ultimately provide your approach clearance (e.g. the approach control frequency listed on your approach chart), add your approach request and the ATIS letter for the airport where you are landing.

Oakland Center, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, four thousand.

Or ...

Santa Barbara approach, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, request the ILS runway seven, information Hotel.

If you are trying to get in the system, using the facility's name is like shaking hands when you introduce yourself. If you use the facility name correctly and the controller responds, you do not need to mention the facility name again.

Seattle center, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo.
Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, Seattle Center, say request.
Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, a 172 slant Golf, 14 miles southeast of North Bend, four thousand five hundred, request practice ILS four, full stop, with the one minute weather.
Cessna 3 Foxtrot Echo, squawk 5342 and ident ...

If you are requesting a practice approach in VFR conditions, let the controller know how the approach will terminate. Doing so will save the controller time and prevent them from having to ask you when you are busy programming your GPS or answering an existential question just posed to you by your instructor.

Norcal, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, five thousand five hundred, request Sac Executive ILS two practice approach, multiple approaches, information Bravo.

If you are requesting a practice approach and you want to fly the full approach with a procedure turn, let the controller know when you request the approach.

Travis approach, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, three thousand five hundred, request the Concord LDA one niner right, pilot nav, information Bravo.

Handed off to the tower on an approach, many pilots like to use the phrase "outside the marker," perhaps because they think it sounds cool. I think that phrase is like "clear of the active:" It's not very descriptive because there may be multiple approaches to multiple runways at the airport. I've even heard pilots use this phrase when the approach no longer has an outer marker (the FAA is decommissioning OMs at an alarming rate). It used to be that if an airport had an approach with a marker beacon, it was likely the only approach to that runway, but with the creation of RNAV approaches this is no longer the case. So do the controller a favor and tell them the name of the approach you are flying. It's easy - just read your tail number off the placard on your instrument panel, then read the title of the approach off the chart.

Concord tower, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, LDA one niner right practice approach, request touch-and-go, then back to Travis.

In a non-radar environment, the tower will ask you to report the final approach fix and that is a great time to do your Five Tees - Time, Turn, Twist, Throttle Talk. Remember that reporting the final approach fix to the tower is your last priority. Some tower controllers get very talkative with pilots who are inside the final approach fix. If the tower is bugging you with trivial stuff, don't hesitate to tell them to standby.

When beginning the missed approach at a towered airport, remember to tell the tower. And keep it simple. You've already checked in with them so you do not need to say the name of the facility, just tell them what you are doing:

Cessna 3 Foxtrot Echo, missed approach.

When flying an approach into a non-towered airport where you plan to fly the missed approach, remember that the approach controller will have to radar identify you again. Many pilots do this check-in as follows:

Norcal, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo on the missed at Tracy.

A bunch of words that omit the main information the controller needs: your altitude and the altitude to which you are climbing.

Norcal, Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, niner hundred, climbing two thousand.

Have your finger poised over the ident button on your transponder when departing a non-towered airport because the controller will respond:

Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, Norcal approach, ident.

Remember that you don't have to read back the instruction to ident, just press the ident button.

You'll know you've done a good job giving the controller the needed information when the controller responds:

Cessna 123 Foxtrot Echo, Norcal approach, roger.