As the story goes, there we were.....

Flying lead in a section of 170s, we were headed into the uncontrolled field for lunch and talking to a Mooney also inbound. I called at 10nm and he was at 8 nm, no problem. We enter on the 45 for a right downwind (RH Traffic on 13) to 13 (wind 190/6, 270OVC) and watched the Mooney land as we extended a bit to fly a nice low pass before coming around to land. The runway looked clear and we were the only ones in the pattern as we head down (trees along west side of runway) I'm on the west edge and -2 is over the centerline to keep clear of parked traffic on the ramp. As we get about 1/4 of the way down the runway something catches my eye ahead.....it's another plane (grey,dirty white and dull orange) crossing the numbers, landing on 31 (upwind and opposite of us!), dirty and slow!!! He had no light, no strobes, no radio calls, nothing. I pull up and come to the right and -2 pulls up and remains straight ahead. We talk on the radio and the FBO kid comes up and says that "it must have been a guy calling on the phone with no electrical!!"

We land, park and go over to the FBO. Sure enough one of the locals had tried to call on his cell phone when he lost electrical power but no one could understand who it was or what he wanted. By the time we had landed he had gone in and ripped them a new one for "not clearing the pattern" for him. Kid told him that he wasn't a tower, the field was uncontrolled and that he was responsible for ensuring he avoided traffic in the pattern. Apparently, he was going to report US to the FAA but, when we went to find him, he was no where to be found.

Now, we are trying to decide if we need to use the NASA silver bullet for this. I don;t think so but -2 has a little concern......any advice on that?

Debriefing the event, a few things came to light:

- neither the Mooney nor our flight saw nor heard anything about this other plane (a C-210)

- even though the FBO had some type of comms with "someone" they failed to mention anything when we called at 10 nm for a traffic advisory (Mooney did not get anything wither)

- wx conditions at the time were VFR but, with 2700OVC and a body of water at the south end of 13 along with fall tree colors, the aircraft approaching from somewhere to land upwind was virtually invisible

- if a quastionable event occurs, all involved should stick around to discuss what happened and how to avoid the sane situation in the future. As it is now, the other guy is most likely PO'd at us for not giving him the right of way he thought he deserved

Other thoughts, comments? Let me have 'em!

Fly Safe......

You can file a NASA report anytime you believe there was an unsafe situation - even if you feel for sure you did not violate a regulation, or inadvertently violate a regulation. My take on the program....

It is my understanding that at an uncontrolled airport radio communications are not required and the active runway is the one you choose to land on regardless of what the rest of traffic is doing. It is each pilots responsibility to maintain seperation.

What i don't understand is why the other guy thought he needed to have the pattern cleared out because of faulty electrics. Last i checked lots of older planes operate out of uncontrolled airports everyday w/ no electrics.

Could be wrong but the only offense i see would be not giving the right away to the lower flying plane on final approach.. Just my 2 cents but i'm no expert........

Hawkeyenfo wrote: Kid told him that he wasn't a tower, the field was uncontrolled and that he was responsible for ensuring he avoided traffic in the pattern. Apparently, he was going to report US to the FAA but, when we went to find him, he was no where to be found.

Now, we are trying to decide if we need to use the NASA silver bullet for this. I don;t think so but -2 has a little concern......any advice on that?

Think I'd be inclined to agree with the FBO kid. And for the guy coming in no radio, it's up to him to see and avoid the prevailing traffic even more so than usual.

All in all a non-event I'm betting as far as the Feds go.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:

Think I'd be inclined to agree with the FBO kid. And for the guy coming in no radio, it's up to him to see and avoid the prevailing traffic even more so than usual.

All in all a non-event I'm betting as far as the Feds go.

Gump

Yup

That's why its called uncontrolled

Its up to all to see and avoid, a low pass isn't std pattern work is it.

Hawkeyenfo,

Sounds like you got a guy who got rattled when he lost his electric. He then proceeded to also lose his common sense. You are good. Nice pick up seeing him in the pattern. I agree with Gump. It is a non event and I wouldn't worry about it.

It was an uncontrolled airport. The FBO has no responsibility to operate a radio or separate anyone. Did you clear the other runway before landing?

Radio calls, radios, electrical systems are not required.

I think uncontrolled airports are the safest as long as everyone knows the rules and watches out and there isn't too much traffic.

When in doubt, fill out a NASA report. It costs nothing and is a get out of jail free card. You never know how the FAA will interpret anything.

Be careful up there

flyer

You guys:
1)While flying in a pre-briefed formation executed a section low approach (perfectly legal)
2)Used the runway favored by the prevailing winds (good headwork)

The other guy:
1)Got razzled not by an emergency, but a system malfunction (good way to turn it into an emergency)
2)Made himself unpredictable by using the runway with the quartering tailwind (bad headwork)
3)Lost further style points for irrational behavior towards the FBO

Doesn't sound like anyone did anything out of line, but he could have used better judgment in his recovery. NASA form wouldn't hurt, but it doesn't sound like you have anything to worry about.

Did the guy with the electrical failure fly a complete pattern? It seems to me that if you can't communicate, at least flying a standard pattern would give others in the pattern more chances to see what you were up to.

tom

Savannah-Tom wrote:Did the guy with the electrical failure fly a complete pattern? It seems to me that if you can't communicate, at least flying a standard pattern would give others in the pattern more chances to see what you were up to.

tom

I'm with Savannah-Tom. I'm betting he did some sorta' straight in as it sounds like he wanted on the ground asap. Shook by the electrical failure, he short cut procedure and almost got himself and others killed.

If it were me, I might be inclined to write it all down (including his N # if ya' got it) let # 2 do the same and hang on to it for future reference, if needed.

A straight in approach is perfectly legal. He did nothing wrong. He may have had other issues that he was concerned with. He had the sense to call on his cell phone to notify the FBO.

There is no rule that says you have to land into the wind. It was a crosswind.

It may have been safer to do a complete pattern but he may have had other problems that made an immediate landing more important.

You may want to check the legality of doing a formation fly-by, low approach. You were really doing a go-around after you saw that he was landing, weren't you.

He was landing, he was lower which means that he had the right of way.
He was perfectly legal.

Each pilot should turn in a NASA report. I have turned in many. Then forget about it and go fly.

flyer

Not too sure what the reg's are in the US, but up here a straight in to an uncontrolled airport definately ain't legal. Crossing midfield or joining straight in on the downwind are the only two ways to do it.

flyer wrote:A straight in approach is perfectly legal. He did nothing wrong. He may have had other issues that he was concerned with. He had the sense to call on his cell phone to notify the FBO.

There is no rule that says you have to land into the wind. It was a crosswind.

It may have been safer to do a complete pattern but he may have had other problems that made an immediate landing more important.

You may want to check the legality of doing a formation fly-by, low approach. You were really doing a go-around after you saw that he was landing, weren't you.

He was landing, he was lower which means that he had the right of way.
He was perfectly legal.

Each pilot should turn in a NASA report. I have turned in many. Then forget about it and go fly.

flyer

While legal, I don't think it would be the "prudent" way to approach a field with no com. I know I wouldn't. I have approached uncontrolled fields with no com and I would fly an overhead approach 500' higher than standard pattern. Get a look at the windsock and make the appropriate entry to a downwind, flying as textbook as possible as that is where people would expect you to be and where they would be looking.

I'm still thinking he was a bit spooked and wanted on the ground and a straight in, downwind or crosswind was the quickest way. As far as the NASA goes, that's his call. I'm sure a formation approach resulted in some attention being diverted from the opposing traffic and probably played a roll also.

Monday morning quarterbacking is kinda' tough...

Mark

Just my .02.

I don't see anything ILLEGAL on the part of either party.

As to the guy with the electrical failure making a straight in--IF he actually did, maybe he was concerned that there was something causing this electrical failure that might create another problem. Who knows, but if I have a mechanical failure, I'm probably going to get the thing on the ground ASAP, but as safely as possible. That's not much of a downwind component for a 210, so.....

On the other hand, two airplanes were making a low pass over an uncontrolled airport, for no other reason than that they could. Is this legal? Near as I can tell it is. Is it smart? In my opinion, definitely not. This falls into the category of show boating. It serves no purpose other than to try to impress folks on the ground.

One day, you may REALLY impress them with a midair doing this.

Low passes tie up the pattern for a long time, and they are NOT what most pilots are going to be expecting you to do, so they can cause confusion.

I'd file a NASA form, even though no regs were broken. The purpose of the forms isn't to get you out of jail free---it's to provide NASA with data that they can then use to try to evaluate near misses, etc. and improve safety. It also could get you out of jail free, but I doubt that you'll need it in any case.

Report anyway, they can use the info.

MTV

Sounds like the low pass was maybe a blessing in disguise, eh? If you & your flight had been landing, you would have been nose-to-nose with the 210 landing the other way -- not too good a situation. Maybe the runway was long enough for that to be no problem, maybe not.
I'd dummy up and say nothing to the feds. Why open a can of worms? . While it may have shook you (or the other guy) up, sounds to me like it wasn't really all that close a call.
Just for grins, how low was that "low pass"? In recent years, the FAA has kind of come out against "low passes" & "fly-by's". Or was it actually an "observation pass" with an overhead break back to downwind? Sounds like a safety-first maneuver to me, never know what might be out on the runway, ya know-- deer, broken-down 210's, etc.

Eric

These are great comments from everyone, thanks for the discussion. Always assuming that people will do the unexpected. I believe that another of the factors here were that we were in the "established" pattern (for the winds) following the only other aircraft out there and we saw/heard no one else approaching the airfield (4 people in all, 2 in the mooney).

Thinking about it, we came from roughly 180-190 and I had been scanning the entire pattern for 5 minutes or so approaching from over the water and did not see anyone (can you say...set myself up to think there was no one else out there coming the opposite way.)

I have no idea wheter the 210 was on a straight-in or a right pattern for 31 (again, right pattern for 13, left for 31 due to historic town nearby). I'm fairly certain he was not in the left pattern for 31 as it would have been opposite of us while we entered the downwind for 13. Nor do I know if he had any other trouble (emergency, physical issue, panic, etc)

Unfortunately, in this case, we/I may never find out exactly what was going on since the guy parked his plane, then left (or remained unavailable). We stayed there for over an hour and a half asking around and looking for him to talk about what we all saw/did. I have his tail number and got his name off the FAA website and may, after I get back to shore (currently at sea for a bit) may try to give him a call.

I am very thankful that it all ended safely for everyone and have added yet another "lessons-learned" to my list of things to pass along to those I meet and hangar-fly with.

PS ....yep, I did mis-type upwind when I meant he was landing downwind in the original post.
_________________

Hawkeyenfo wrote:.......I believe that another of the factors here were that we were in the "established" pattern (for the winds) following the only other aircraft out there and we saw/heard no one else approaching the airfield (4 people in all, 2 in the mooney). ..........

Read the FAR's, part 91.113 right of way (paraphrased):
b) general--see and avoid
&
g) landing--aircraft on final or landing have right of way....aircraft at the lower altitude has right of way

Common sense & common courtesy notwithstanding, flying a pattern and making/hearing radio calls have nothing to do with right-of-way per the FAR's.

Eric

I agree and have no problem with the FARs.

I think that the biggest suprises for us were not seeing him until he was over the numbers, and him landing in the opposite direction of the aircraft we were following. While this is technically legal on his part (emergency or not) it is not predictable and again points out the merits of:

- expect the unexpected
- scan, scan, scan

Hawkeyenfo wrote:I think that the biggest suprises for us were not seeing him until he was over the numbers, and him landing in the opposite direction of the aircraft we were following.

Hey... Bottom line is, stuff like this happens all the time at little airports and strips. You see the other guy first and you go-around. He sees you first... It doesn't matter. It adds three minutes to your trip, and it doesn't hurt anyone to have to cob the power, reconfigure and go into go-around mode, and come back in for another try. It's good practice and knocks off some cobwebs. On your day it was a guy landing the opposite way. Tomorrow it might be a deer on the runway. Stuff happens.

What hurts us all, are guys like your C210 driver who get pissed off and threaten to call the Feds over something like this. I don't know about you guys, but I want less Fed intervention in my flying life, not more.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:Bottom line is, stuff like this happens all the time at little airports and strips.

I want less Fed intervention in my flying life, not more.

Yes on both counts. The closest calls I've had have been at a small but busy towered GA field. A couple of the controllers there are not up to snuff and make mistakes regularly. You have to really be on top of things to catch their mistakes, scan like crazy and make sure that your responses to the tower tell everyone else on freq. where you are and what you're doing. Locals know about the problem and that they need to be extra sharp, but pilots who aren't familiar are at risk. I'd take CTAF over a bad tower controller any day.

CAVU

P.S. This isn't an indictment of all controllers--just a bad situation at one field.