Why I hate fly-ins...

timwinters

New member
...or "Aviation 101: How NOT to run a fly-in"
______

Prelude: First let me say that I am in no way ‘God's gift to aviating’ but I at least try to pay attention and follow the rules. Also, my “I hate fly-ins” statement isn’t referring to fly-ins like those organized by pilots’ forums, because people here (at at the other pilots' sites) tend to take their flying far more seriously than the average 'flying Joe'. What I’m talking about is the fly-ins held at local airports and that are marketed to (and open to) the flying public and the general public.
______

So, I took Barney to a fly-in at Pocahontas, AR (M70) last Saturday. On the way down we landed at Poplar Bluff, MO (POF). I told him that I wanted him to see a landing at a ‘normal’ airport first, M70 may be a zoo when we arrive. After departing POF he got my standard “fly-in briefing”---that we’ll need to be especially careful and vigilant because fly-ins pose unique challenges; lot’s of traffic (help me look); draws lots of folks who don’t fly much and thus they may not follow the rules; that there may be NORDO traffic (help me look); and, in the case of this airfield, it’ll be a busy day without a full length parallel taxiway. Not good.

Upon our arrival we weren’t disappointed with either the level of excitement or incompetence.

After listening for a few minutes we make our first call at 10 miles out. The only response was from the local boys who are playing pseudo control tower and gave the winds and active runway. I ignored them.

Since we were arriving from the NE and the wind was out of the south my plan was to navigate to a point about 5 miles east of the field while descending to 1500’, and then turned due west abeam the 36 numbers (or just south of that point) to allow for standard 45* entry into a left downwind.

When I turned towards the field from 5 miles ESE, I made my five mile call. I got another response from the ‘local tower’ “this is Pocahontas Unicom, winds are 190 @ 6, we have two other inbound aircraft, you’re number three to land” (again, I ignored them…like they’re going to know about any NORDO traffic in the area). I got a response from an aircraft turning base to final (who had been giving position reports) and one who announced that they were on left downwind 18. It was the downwind aircraft’s first call and he included the obligatory ATITAPA. So we turned inbound, started our descent to TPA (1000’) and started looking for that aircraft (and others).

We continued towards the field looking for that aircraft but couldn’t find him. I’m now down to TPA and before I even turn 45* that aircraft passes directly over the top of me. He’s AT LEAST 500’ above me and flying a downwind leg AT LEAST 2 miles from the field. He apparently announced downwind when he was at least 3 to 4 miles south. It’s a straight tail 172.

So, I announced that I’m doing a 360 for separation, 2 miles ESE of the 36 numbers and add the comment “pattern altitude at Pocahontas is 1000’.” (sorry, I couldn’t help it). By this time an Ercoupe announces that they’re 3 miles WSW of the field on an extended crosswind (and that Ercoupe just happens to be a buddy of mine from Harrison, AR).

So, I do my 360, make visual contact with the Ercoupe, continue the 45 and then turn downwind about ¾ mile abeam the field. We re-establish visual with the 172. He’s still at least 500’ above us and flying a pattern that will give him a really nice tour of the four state area before he lands (the man literally flew a 3 mile or bigger pattern).

And, of course, pseudo tower is still providing guidance and instructions that I’m continuing to ignore because, again, they have no clue as to what NORDO traffic may be lurking about.

When I saw that the 172 was flying a 747 pattern I should have elected to exit the pattern, fly out east and enjoy the scenery for a few minutes and then fall back in behind the Ercoupe but I didn’t. I simply decided to extend my downwind. As a result we were almost 3 miles north of the field when we turned base. I drug the plane in on the prop and made a crappy landing.

So, now we’re on the ground and pseudo control tower tells us to contact ground on 123.45. I almost said “unable” but decided that it’s okay for me to monitor 123.45---I just can’t talk on it. So, I switched and follow ground’s instructions to parking. Ground asked me an irrelevant question while I’m parking. I don’t respond. After I’m parked and out of the plane he made a snide comment about me not responding. I respond as politely as I could that if he wanted me to talk then he should have chosen a frequency that is legal for me to talk on.

But the fun’s only begun.

After a trip to the FBO to relieve myself I walk out of the building to see kids climbing all over the parked planes. So I walk over and had a polite talk with the parents. No “fly-in personnel” were keeping an eye on the planes or on the general public. Needless to say there wasn’t even a sign at the general public’s entry to the ramp warning them to stay away from propellers and to not touch aircraft. “Look, enjoy, but please don’t touch” reads the sign on my propeller…not that anyone ever pays attention to it.

They were also giving chopper rides and the chopper kept departing over one line of parked planes and coming back in right over another. Even though it was just a small Robinson, there was enough rotor wash to make the lighter planes dance. I cringed but I didn’t say anything but only because my plane wasn’t in either of those two lines.

So, we had a quick early lunch, I talked to my Ercoupe buddy for a while (while staying quite close to, and keeping an eye on, my plane).

And then we got the hell out of there.

Sometimes I really I hate fly-ins.
 
Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

Matthew said:
I think 123.45 is also reserved as a flight test freq, but I can't find any specifics.

The freqs in the AIM are the assigned freqs - I don't think it's OK to use one that hasn't been assigned for GA use.
Here is what I found:

The freq. 123.45 is designated by the FCC as a flight test frequency in Subpart J in this part of the regs:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2007-title47-vol5-part87-subpartJ.pdf

However, the frequencies that would have been proper for the person on the ground to use are in Subpart K in this parts of the FCC regs:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2007-title47-vol5-part87-subpartK.pdf
 
Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

bflynn said:
On the frequencies - does anyone have a reference that isn't the AIM....you know, one that actually carries legal weight?
Read the FCC regs in the links I provided in post 12.
 
Re: Why I hat fly-ins...

jesse said:
Being unfamiliar with the regulations of the FCC is not an excuse for violating them.
Well... in the case of pilots who are told they can legally use the transmitters in their airplanes, then they may be able to win on a defense using "ignorance of the law" - involving something known as a lack of "mens rea" (Latin for "guilty mind"; as far as the legal profession seems concerned, the Roman empire never collapsed.) See Supreme Court case of Liparota v. United States where the court found that a violation of a regulation through innocent ignorance (provided the facts can support it) can be considered a valid defense.
 
Back
Top