Blue Airplane Downwind

Got comments?

Another rant by John Wilson: I monitor our multicom frequency while puttering about the property and sometimes hear some interesting things. Like the other day when someone announced their arrival using a call sign similar to the above (something that I am hearing more and more often).

An instructor & student in another airplane were also in the pattern and after listening to several "Blue Airplane" calls the instructor made a comment to the effect that the FAA and the FCC specify a slightly different radio technique. The blue airplane driver took exception to this and defended his (her, actually) style of communication.

I admit I'm an old fart who started communicating via two-way radio around 1956, so yeah, I'm partial to more professional comm techniques. Beyond that, though, I feel there are a a few good reasons to avoid the "Blue Airplane" style, and here they are:

	First (and I would think most importantly), it immediately brands you as an amateur pilot to everyone listening. As with the instructor who was doubtless wondering where and from whom 'Blue Airplane' learned to fly, using "CBer" radio techniques automatically brings up doubts among your fellow aviators about the rest of your piloting skills.
	Secondly, it contains useless information. The use of color as an identifier is quite pointless, since you can't really make out what color a plane is until it is within a half mile or so.
	Finally (if anyone cares), as the instructor in the incident above noted, the lack of a proper call sign (ID) is a violation of regulations. FCC 87.107(a) and AIM 4-2-3 & 4 require that you use your type of aircraft followed by the numbers/letters of your registration, without the "N". Abbreviating to the last 3 is accepted after the first call and no one is going to complain if that's all you use in an uncontrolled environment.

Of course, we hope these pilots are not for some reason avoiding use of proper call signs intentionally under the belief it makes them more difficult to identify. My take on that attitude would be that the minor transgression of not using proper calls might actually motivate a monitoring FAA type to, shall we say, take a closer look at your activities. Counter-productive, so to speak.

How-to resources: FCC 87-107, FAA AIM chapter 4 and Pilot-Controller Glossary

And we have another view:

Regarding the recent rant concerning radio procedures at Rosamond, I couldn’t help but notice that Mr. Wilson failed to keep the cited regulations in proper context. At face value, the regulations are very specific and unambiguous regarding proper radio communication, as they should be – determining WHO ATC is giving clearances/instructions to is of vital importance. However, Rosamond is NOT in the ATC system and there are no clearances issued. That pretty much eliminates the jurisdiction and intent of the cited regulations right there. Legalities aside, logic dictates that the important aspect of radio communications in an uncontrolled environment is to help identify WHAT the target is, not WHO. In this case, the radio (use of which is optional, let’s not forget) is used as a means to augment the “see and avoid” responsibility we are charged with as pilots.

As far as using an N number for identification in the pattern, would you rather hear just "experimental 123", or would you get more info knowing it was a red Harmon Rocket vs. a yellow Kitfox (Remember, the “type” for both is “experimental”)? I know what I want to hear from other pilots… and it sure isn’t a registration number! At uncontrolled airports WE (the pilots) are the controlling agency, and since I'm going to be flying in very close proximity to these other aircraft, I'd like to know what I'm looking/planning for. In other words, is that speck out there turning base a 250 MPH Rocket, or an ultralight that can hardly get out of its own way? My planning is much easier if I know that detail.

Lastly, there are several very good reasons to keep the specific identification of your aircraft as secret as possible in this litigious society. Anybody can listen in, gather N numbers, and file bogus reports to the feds, as has happened just over the hill in Agua Dulce. Sorry, I’m not about to broadcast my ID to anyone unless it is required.

In short, there is NO requirement to identify the specific aircraft by registration number at an uncontrolled field; it's optional. In my opinion (and that of my crusty old flight instructor who taught me the same), safety is much improved by helping out the other pilots by identifying the type and color of aircraft. There is zero value added by including the N number.

Your neighbor to the north,

“Red and White Biplane”

Here's another:

I use the RV identification all the time because I am trying to build a habit and I am concerned I will screw up if I try to switch report type between controlled and non control airports. Also I am proud I am an RV and of my registration. Also for an uncontrolled field I announce on each leg if possible. As far as I am concerned, if you are in the pattern or near an airport the most important thing to do is communicate your specific location, downwind, base, final, north 5 miles out, etc. Most of us have radios and should use them so others know where you are. If I hear that another plane is in "downwind for left 25" and I am on "downwind for left 25" I do not think I would be concerned with the color of the other plane. Just hearing "downwind for left 25" should make me take action. By the why what should I do, Climb, Dive, Turn Right or Left? The only place I was told not to use my registration numbers was flying into Oshkosh. And in that case we responded back only by rocking the wings.

N72NJ, Red and Silver RV

And a wrap-up reply from JW:

Good replies…don’t get me wrong on this, my objection to non-standard radio talk is primarily aesthetic and I chose the subject just for the fun of it because I was pretty sure it would catch some response.

Red & White Biplane properly emphasizes the primary need to communicate to 'the other guy' your type of aircraft (size, performance), and that for blind traffic calls the data on exactly which aircraft of that type is making the call is of minor importance.

However, beyond the admitted objective of obscuring the aircraft/pilot’s identity I simply can’t agree with his explanation that using a totally different style of ID around uncontrolled airports somehow confers a safety advantage.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding due to the unfortunate use of the word “type” in Title 47. What FAA wants is not “single engine land” or just “experimental”. They want to hear exactly what everyone in mainstream aviation uses, which is a descriptive model tag. My plane, for example, is a Skylane; I use that ID everywhere whether I am working with LA Center or transmitting “in the blind” at an uncontrolled airport. In both cases the listener can understand exactly what kind of plane they are dealing with (single engine prop high wing not very fast). RV, Lancair, etc. work the same.

Of course if you fly a Krevinholtz-Singleton-MKV-triplane-with-the-Milford-top-and-bottom-wing-clip-mod-and-twin-turbo-Ford460-in-place-of-the-Kinner-rotary, then guess what? You're screwed. ☺ Go with 'Experimental clipwing' and we'll all figure it out.

One last swing at the legal side of this discussion: I am a realist and accept that people blow off regulations “regularly”. In the interest of accuracy though, I must correct Red & White’s mistaken belief that Title 47 Section 87.107 of the U.S. Code does not apply to communications at uncontrolled fields. The regulation applies to ALL aircraft voice radio transmissions everywhere, regardless of who you are talking to or even if you are merely transmitting for no reason at all. For a more complete explanation of what is behind this, CLICK HERE.

And let's hear some more opinions!! Any aviation subject!

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Last modified: 04/08/08