National Academies Press: OpenBook

Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports (2016)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Survey Results

« Previous: Chapter Three - Literature Review
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23628.
×
Page 31

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

20 chapter four SURVEY RESULTS METHOD OF ADVISORIES In general, non-towered airports provide information to pilots. Even a sole wind sock at an unattended airport is providing wind information (magnitude and direction) to pilots. The survey began by asking participants, “In what manner does your airport provide airport advisories to pilots?” As shown in Figure 6, most respondents (160, 97%) provide information to pilots by means of audible advisory, ASOS/AWOS, or wind sock or segmented circle. Only 57 (35%) airports provide audible airport advisories to pilots upon request. Most airports not providing audible advisories provide AWOS or ASOS. AWOS/ASOS are provided by 150 airports (91% of respondents), and a wind sock or segmented circle is provided by 160 airports (97% of respondents). A few airports also have a dedicated website or use e-mail to keep airport users informed, although these resources would be useful to pilots only in the trip planning stages, not while in the air inbound for landing. AUDIBLE ADVISORIES Of the airports providing audible airport advisories, most provide them only upon request by a pilot. Even if airport advisories are available upon request, some airports reported low utilization of this service. This low utilization at some airports has been associated with lack of formal training of per- sonnel and an underlying fear of liability by airports in providing airport advisories. When provided, the advisories generally are designed to convey winds, runway in use (or favored), and NOTAMs affecting the airfield. The personnel providing the audible airport advisories varied among airports, although there were common themes in the data. Airport staff or airport office personnel were more than twice as likely as other personnel to provide the advisories. The next most common personnel providing advisories were the airport manager, FBO manager or FBO personnel, or airport operations (see Figure 7). In an effort to determine how personnel providing airport advisories obtain the correct information to disseminate to airport users, the survey included a question addressing any unique tools or equipment used: “What equipment, procedures, or information are utilized by those providing airport advisories?” Generally, the data reveal that airport personnel are using only a radio and visual observation to obtain information to disseminate to pilots. Although several participants use their on-field weather observation system, most simply rely on the wind sock and observation of the runway for other air- craft activity (see Figure 8). Finally, as part of this subset of questions on audible advisories, in an effort to determine the degree of personnel training for personnel providing airport advisories, the interviewer asked, “Are there any special certifications (i.e., trained weather observer) or training required for those providing airport advisories?” Most participants do not provide any formal training for personnel assigned the task of providing airport advisories to airport users. Most airports emphasize proper phraseology and operation of the UNICOM base station, but that is generally the extent of training. Many airports prefer pilots to staff

21 57 150 160 2 3 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Audible ASOS/AWOS Wind sock/segmented circle Pilots of other aircraft Observe other aircraft Other Number of Responses In what manner does your airport provide advisories to pilots? FIGURE 6 Nature of advisories. 11 10 25 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Airport manager FBO Airport staff/office personnel Operations Number of Responses Who provides the airport advisory? FIGURE 7 Source of advisory. What equipment, procedures, or information are utilized by those providing airport advisories? 11% 11% 79% AWOS/ASOS Radio alone Radio, wind sock, observe other aircraft FIGURE 8 Equipment, procedures, and information used by those providing airport advisories.

22 the UNICOM. Two of the airports that participated in the study actually require certificated pilots to staff the UNICOM base. The managers of these two airports are pilots, which may explain their requirement. These managers believe that pilots are best equipped to advise other pilots on winds and runways in use (see Figure 9). DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLISHED AND ACTUAL PROCEDURES To determine whether pilots, in general, are following proper protocol, the participants were asked, “Is there a difference between what is published and what is normally actually followed?” The reasoning behind this question relates to the unique expectations on the part of pilots in the non-towered airport environment. Fortunately, 132 participating airports (85%) answered “no” to this question. In essence, at most non-towered airports, pilots are adhering to published traffic patterns; even so, 14 (9%) of the participating airports stated there was “sometimes” a difference between what is published and what is normally actually followed, whereas 10 (6%) participating airports answered “yes,” there was a difference (see Figure 10). Are any special certifications (i.e., trained weather observer) or training required for those providing airport advisories? 5% 86% 10% Yes No Must be pilot FIGURE 9 Required certifications or training for those providing airport advisories. 10 132 14 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Yes No Sometimes Number of Responses Is there a difference between what is published and what is normally actually followed? FIGURE 10 Difference between what is published and the actual procedures followed.

23 AIRPORT OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE/AIRCRAFT RESCUE FIREFIGHTING VEHICLE PROCEDURES Because of the specific hazards presented by the presence of vehicles in the airport movement area, especially at non-towered airports where ATC clearance is not required, the survey queried participants about how their operations/maintenance/ARFF vehicles access the movement area. Although there is significant guidance for ground vehicle operators, as reviewed in chapter three, the reality of ground vehicle operating practice was deemed significant enough to be included in this study. Most of the participating airports report that ground vehicle operators monitor the radio (145 or 89% of responses) and/or utilize lights/flags on the vehicle (132 or 81% of responses) (see Figure 11). Thirty-three (20%) participating airports stated their ground vehicle operators self-announce before entering the movement area, including the runway. Twenty (12%) participating airports provided another response, which focused mostly on “looking out” for aircraft, including one respondent who stated, “Our ground vehicle operators are required to perform a 360-degree turn before entering the runway to check for traffic in the pattern who may not be broadcasting.” This is recognized by the FAA as a best practice. ROLE OF COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY An effort was made to determine the role of the CTAF at airports by asking participating respondents, “Does the CTAF at your airport serve as UNICOM, MULTICOM, and/or FSS?” Although only 71 participants answered this question, 100% of them answered “UNICOM.” In general, non-towered airports equipped with UNICOM have either a stand-alone UNICOM frequency or a combined CTAF/UNICOM frequency. Survey findings point to advantages and disadvantages with each of these approaches. In particular, with a stand-alone frequency, transmissions do not compete with general pilot advisories that would be transmitted on the CTAF. However, pilots are required to be informed of this separate frequency and realize that CTAF and UNICOM are not combined. Airports with a combined CTAF/UNICOM frequency have the advantage of only one frequency being required. Pilots must address “traffic” or “UNICOM” to ensure the appropriate response. At the same time, combined frequencies report greater frequency congestion as UNICOM and CTAF transmissions share the same frequency. To determine if automated airport advisory information was made available on this frequency, participating airports were asked, “Is automated airport advisory information broadcast on this fre- quency (like ATIS)?” Most participating airports (118 or 96%) answered in the negative (see Figure 12). This means that the UNICOM stations must be staffed by personnel capable of communicating airport advisories to pilots upon request. 132 145 33 4 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Lights/flag Monitor radio Self announce Vehicle markings Other Number of Responses What procedure do airport operations/maintenance/ ARFF vehicles follow at your airport to proceed safely onto the movement area and runway? FIGURE 11 Procedures for operations/maintenance/ARFF vehicles.

24 COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY Many airports use the same frequency for CTAF, and frequency interference, or bleed over, is often the result. In an effort to determine the role of frequency interference at non-towered airports (to possibly shed light on the role of such frequency interference on safe aircraft operations), participat- ing airports were first asked to specify the frequency of their CTAF. Second, they were asked whether bleed over was a problem. Results indicate that at the majority of participating airports, three CTAF frequencies are most common: 122.80 (24%), 123.00 (22%), and 122.70 (19%) (Table 3). Because this study was con- ducted on a nationwide basis, these findings do not necessarily indicate frequency congestion among the airports sharing identical frequencies. The next question in the survey asked, “Is bleed over ever an issue with nearby airports sharing same frequency?” Although the majority of participating airports (88 or 54%) did not report frequency 5 118 0 20 40 60 100 120 140 Yes No Number of Responses Is automated airport advisory information broadcast on this frequency (like ATIS)? 80 FIGURE 12 Availability of automated advisories. UNICOM Frequency Number of Airports Percentage of Airports 122.70 38 20 122.725 11 6 122.80 47 25 122.95 2 1 122.975 9 5 123.00 49 26 123.05 21 11 123.075 11 6 Total 188 TABLE 3 ASSIGNED UNICOM FREQUENCIES FOR AIRPORTS IN THE STUDY

25 congestion, 57 (35%) participating airports reported frequency congestion or bleed over with nearby airports sharing the same frequency. This problem is more prevalent in states such as Florida, where the land is flat and there are numerous airports near each other. Eighteen (11%) airports reported bleed over that was intermittent or faint (see Figure 13). In reality, there are only a certain number of frequencies available. Because of the limited available frequencies, radio frequency interference with nearby airports may be problematic at an airport. Both the FAA and FCC recognize this and encourage airport opera- tors to “develop a ‘least interference’ frequency assignment plan” (FAA 2014a, p. 4-1-6). The AOPA “encourages licensed UNICOM operators to consider changing a frequently overloaded UNICOM frequency to a frequency unique to the area, thus avoiding congestion and improving safety” (AOPA n.d.). Specifically, AOPA recommends a minimum of 60 statute miles between airports sharing a frequency. Requests for a different frequency may be made with the FCC, with preference given to 25-kHz–spaced channel frequencies. For airports experiencing frequency interference, especially interference such as that resulting from a hostile neighbor with a handheld device or FBOs at the airport arguing over fuel sales, the airport may file an “interference complaint” with the FCC. The FCC then has the authority to compel the interfering party to cease and desist from interfering with the airport UNICOM frequency. The FCC regulates aviation services frequencies in cooperation with the FAA. Both FCC and FAA requirements must be complied with by anyone using an aviation radio. New applications are to be submitted to the FCC through the Universal Licensing Systems (ULS). More information is available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=licensing&id=ground_stations. PILOT CONSISTENCY To gauge the degree to which pilots actually communicate their intentions over the CTAF, the survey asked participants, “Do pilots consistently communicate their intentions over the CTAF?” Fortunately for these airports and in the interest of airport safety, the vast majority of participating airports (158 or 97%) reported that pilots usually communicate their intentions over the CTAF. This is identified as a best practice by the FAA and AOPA and brings some sense of organization to a non-towered, non-ATC airport environment (see Figure 14). 57 88 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Slight/Faint Is bleed over ever an issue with nearby airports sharing same frequency? FIGURE 13 Prevalence of frequency interference.

26 EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE INCURSIONS To learn what methods participating airports use to minimize runway incursions, a survey question asked about such methods: “What are you doing to minimize incidents/incursions at your airport?” This was an open-ended question, allowing participants to list any and all methods adopted at their airport. Although 155 unique responses were received, several common themes emerged. The data indicate that most of the participants answering the question do nothing special to min- imize incident/incursions at their airports. However, the data were analyzed to discover themes related to proactive approaches by participating airports for minimizing incidents/incursions. Common methods include safety meetings, enhancements to the airfield (such as LED lighting, new service roads that bypass the runway, enhanced runway safety areas, or security fencing), encouraged com- munication, pilot meetings, safety reminders, limiting access, procedural, driving training, signage, and EAA/FAA/AOPA meetings (see Figure 15). 158 2 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Yes - Most of the time No - Most of the time Sometimes Do pilots consistently communicate their intentions over the CTAF? FIGURE 14 Communication of pilot intentions. 1 1 1 4 5 6 6 8 9 11 11 13 23 49 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Daily briefings Airport advisory committee mtg Construction safety mtg EAA/FAA/AOPA meetings Signage Driver training Procedural Limit access Safety reminders Pilot meetings Encourage communication Construction/design Safety meetings Nothing What are you doing to minimize incidents/incursions at your airport? FIGURE 15 Actions taken to minimize incidents/incursions.

27 IMPROVEMENTS TO AIRFIELD SAFETY In an effort to determine if there were any other methods that could be adopted by airports, especially in relation to the broadcast of airport advisories, the survey asked, “How do you feel airfield safety related to airport advisories could be improved at your airport?” Although most participants responding to this question indicated that nothing could be done to improve airfield safety, some airports provided suggestions for improvement. Two (2%) airports would like to have an AWOS or ASOS installed. Three (2%) airports would prefer that pilots check NOTAMs more often. Three (2%) airports would like to eliminate their frequency interference (or bleed over) problem. Three (2%) airports would prefer to require all aircraft operating at their airport to have and use radios. Five (4%) airports would prefer to have an air traffic control tower built. Five (4%) airports also would prefer that pilots do a better job of communicating their intentions in the airport environment. Seven (5%) airports would prefer the ability to augment their AWOS or ASOS remarks (see Figure 16). NECESSITY OF AIRPORT ADVISORIES To gauge the degree of support among non-towered airports for audible airport advisories, the follow- ing question was asked: “Do you believe that airport advisories are necessary at non-towered airports?” The vast majority of participants (96%) believe that audible airport advisories are necessary at non- towered airports. This was true even among airports not currently issuing audible airport advisories (see Figure 17). There is a general belief among participating airports in the value of airport advisories for enhancing airport safety. PROPOSED CHANGES TO AIRPORT ADVISORIES To benefit from the collective experience of the participating airports, the survey asked, “Do you feel changes to airport advisories would improve aviation safety? If so, what types of changes?” The responses were varied and, as a result of the open-ended format of the question, provided rich data. Themes, based on actual unique comments by participants, include: • Have the ability to append/augment AWOS/ASOS broadcasts • Use proper phraseology on UNICOM • Minimize frequency interference/bleed over • Make more UNICOM frequencies available 102 7 5 5 3 3 3 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Nothing Ability to augment AWOS remarks Better pilot communication Construct tower Require all pilots to have radios Eliminate bleed over Pilots check NOTAMs Install AWOS/ASOS How do you feel airfield safety related to airport advisories could be improved at your airport? FIGURE 16 Potential improvement of airfield safety.

28 • Require mandatory radios by pilots • Ensure NOTAMs are made available on UNICOM and/or AWOS/ASOS • Enhance situational awareness on the part of all airport users • Improve training for those providing advisories • Improve education of pilots on proper communication and the role of UNICOM. LESSONS LEARNED In an effort to learn from the experiences of participating airports, the survey asked participants, “What lessons has your airport learned regarding the use, misuse, or absence of airport advisories?” This question also yielded rich data because of the open-ended format. The number of actual lessons learned, as verbalized by participants and categorized into themes, are presented in Table 4. Most of the lessons learned that were shared by participants can be categorized as “communication.” Responses placed the responsibility for proper communication on pilots, ground vehicle operators, and UNICOM operators. No one stakeholder was excluded. With a specific focus on the UNICOM operator and the occasional desire to “control” traffic, one participant shared, “Staff gave too much information to pilot to land on a taxiway; in an emergency, it should be the pilot’s decision. Our UNICOM should only issue advisories, not air traffic control instructions. Staff can overstep bounds with advisories.” To sum up all of the lessons learned in the category of communication, one participant shared, “communication is key.” Although not as common as the communication category, several responses can be categorized as “AWOS/ASOS.” It becomes apparent while reviewing the lessons learned that pilots rely heavily 155 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Yes No Do you believe that audible airport advisories are necessary at non-towered airports? FIGURE 17 Necessity of audible airport advisories. Theme Number of Responses Communication 18 AWOS/ASOS 5 NOTAMs 5 See and Avoid 3 Mixed Operations 2 Priorities 2 TABLE 4 LESSONS LEARNED THEMES

29 on an AWOS or ASOS, and the airport manager believes it greatly enhances the airport environment. Whether a stand-alone AWOS/ASOS broadcast is used, or one appended with airport messages, or one used in conjunction with audible airport advisories on the UNICOM frequency, participants shared that having an AWOS or ASOS on the field is useful in their efforts to convey current airport information to pilots. Many of the airports with an ASOS or AWOS report less than enthusiastic demand for an audible airport advisory, especially among locally based pilots. The “NOTAMs” category was as popular as the “AWOS/ASOS” category and often referred to pilots not checking NOTAMs. Thus, airport staff may issue a NOTAM about a closed runway, yet a pilot attempts to land on the closed runway, apparently unaware of the runway closure. As one participant shared, “Pilots don’t check NOTAMs, and this creates inconvenience and negatively impacts airport safety.” The “see and avoid” category places responsibility for this on the pilots. Airports can issue current airport information through audible advisories on UNICOM, but if pilots are not practicing see and avoid techniques, an accident may still occur. As one participant shared, “Pilots should pay attention at all times while in the pattern.” Several lessons learned were in the category of mixed operations. These comments referenced the complexity of aircraft operations, thus affecting airport safety and the need to remain vigilant. As one participant shared, “There are lots of different and risky operations at this airport.” Finally, several responses were categorized as “priorities,” referencing city priorities and pilot pri- orities. One participant believed the city-owned airport was not a priority for the city, thus resulting in airport needs being unmet. Another participant believed that, although safety should be a priority, pilots can be too hurried, causing mistakes to be made. As this participant encouraged, “Slow down, take your time.” NASA AVIATION SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEM REPORTS In addition to the survey of airport operators, a search of NASA Aviation Safety Reporting Systems (ASRS) reports was conducted for the 204 airports that were the focus of this synthesis. Within the NASA ASRS database, all personal and organizational names are removed. Dates, times, and related information that could be used to infer an identity are generalized or eliminated. The NASA ASRS began operation on April 15, 1976, and the search conducted for this synthesis did not specify beginning or ending dates. Although a total of 1,202 reports were produced through the search, only the reports that addressed airport advisories, the use of UNICOM for advisory services, or airport vehicular traffic on the movement area were included. This filtering process yielded only 20 reports. The 20 reports were categorized into themes, as presented in Table 5. The 20 ASRS reports that resulted from the search are summarized, along with consultant com- ments, in Table 6. The full synopsis of each report, as retrieved from the NASA ASRS database, is presented in Appendix D. • Augmenting ASOS transmissions with current field information, including closed pavement, is beneficial. Category Number of Reports Improper or no advisory 10 Beneficial UNICOM advisory 4 Improper radio communication 3 Closed runway operations 3 TABLE 5 THEMES IN ASRS REPORTS RELATED TO SYNTHESIS

30 Number Airport Identifier Synopsis Consultant Analysis 1 VPZ A pilot took off for a short flight from VPZ Runway 27 which was NOTAMed closed, but he had not checked NOTAMs and noted he monitored ASOS which the airport was prohibited from using as an airport status notification tool. The UNICOM station was used to query an aircraft that had taken off from a closed runway. However, on-field ASOS did not indicate the closure. Pilot says there is a disconnect between on-field ASOS at this airport and current NOTAMs. 2 TRM A CL60 experienced multiple TCAS RAs with VFR traffic while inbound to TRM on a brilliant VMC day. The UNICOM station was not issuing airport advisories at this airport on a busy day. Pilot was in need of an airport advisory. 3 AUO Corporate jet Captain reports an opposite direction takeoff by a light plane at an uncontrolled airport as he taxis onto Runway 18 for takeoff. Both aircraft were on the correct Unicom frequency but the Captain did not hear any announcements from the light plane pilot. Even though UNICOM provided an airport advisory indicating winds favored runway 18, the pilot of a light aircraft departed runway 36, opposite the flow of traffic, according to the airport advisory provided by UNICOM. 4 COI C172 Pilot Uses Wrong Unicom Frequency To Announce Intentions To Land At COI. After Touchdown The Pilot Notices A C152 Rolling Out In The Opposite Direction. They Pass In The Middle At Slow Speed. The incorrect UNICOM frequency was used to request an airport advisory because of a recent UNICOM frequency change that was not reflected in current charts or NOTAMs. Although the active runway in use provided by the UNICOM operator matched the airport they were flying into, the aircraft landed against the flow of traffic. 5 X59 An Over-Zealous Unicom Operator Was Creating A Hazardous Condition While Attempting To Act As An Air Tfc Ctlr At A Non Twred Arpt At X59, FL The UNICOM operator at this airport was offering ATC-like instructions, rather than simple airport advisories upon request. Pilot states this UNICOM operator is creating an unsafe airport. 6 F70 Just After Taxiing Across Rwy Hold Line And Announcing Intentions To Use The Rwy At Non Twr Arpt, The Plt Heard Unicom Advise Of An Acft On Final That He Had Not Seen Or Heard From During Taxi And Run-Up. The UNICOM operator notified pilot of landing traffic to avoid a collision after having observed a runway incursion. 7 AUO After Carefully Chking Notams Prior To Flt To AUO, A Cpr Crew On IFR Apch Were Surprised To Find The Rwy 18-36 Closed At The CTAF Arpt. The UNICOM operator notified a pilot of a closed runway after that pilot announced an approach to that runway. Even though a NOTAM had been issued by the airport, FSS did not provide said NOTAM during a pilot briefing. 8 VNC Rptr Complaint Of Freq Congestion At Most Non Twr Arpts Unicom. Pilot reports of severe frequency congestion on UNICOM frequency because of the close proximity and identical frequencies at neighboring airports. 9 BLM F150 Lands At BLM On Closed Rwy. Pilot reports of no response from UNICOM regarding runway closure. 10 ELN A C172 Instructor And Student Landed On A Closed Rwy At ELN. Pilot lands on closed runway because of his lack of awareness of the runway closure. UNICOM station did not provide notice of closed runway, nor did ASOS. Closed runway was also not indicated closed with Xs. 11 PWT Bn-2Amk Iii Trislander Cargo Plt Left Tail Stand Attached During Taxi Out Resulting In Unicom Operator Alerting Him To The Error. Pilot is notified by UNICOM operator of aircraft tail stand left in position on taxi out. TABLE 6 ASRS REPORTS

31 • If an airport has an advertised UNICOM frequency, pilots expect that airport advisories are available upon request. • Generally, pilots expect airport advisories will be issued upon request via the UNICOM frequency. • To ensure effective use of UNICOM by pilots, it is important to communicate any UNICOM frequency change. • It may be helpful for airports experiencing frequency congestion to work with the FAA and FCC to minimize this frequency congestion and avoid duplicate frequencies at neighboring airports. • Pilots often rely on the UNICOM station to monitor airport activity and notify pilots of hazards to prevent accidents. • Although Xs may be used to visually indicate closed runways, pilots also rely on NOTAMs. • Airports may enhance safety by minimizing vehicle/pedestrian traffic in the movement area and ensure that vehicle operators communicate on the appropriate frequency to announce intentions. 12 PWT Be18 On A Short Final To Rwy 19 At Pwt, Encounters A C150 On Its Climb Out From The Opposite Direction. Pilot reports of no response from UNICOM regarding airport advisory request. 13 SUT Instructor With Student Back Taxies On Rwy (No Txwy) And Is Informed By Unicom Of An Acft Turning Onto Final. He Taxied Onto Grass Next To Rwy Which Is Often Used For Lndg Practice And The Second Acft Lands. Pilot reports the UNICOM operator advised of an aircraft on final approach as his aircraft was back taxiing on the runway, thereby preventing a collision. 14 HAO A Cpr Jet Plt Was Forced To Go Around By An Acft Operating Without Radios Or Lights At Hao. Pilot reports of no response from UNICOM regarding runway closure. 15 MGY A Plt Of A C402 Was Advised Once By Apch, Then Twice By Mgy Unicom, That The Arpt Was Closed Due To Painting Equip On The Rwy. Assessing The Unicom Info As False The Plt Landed Anyway And Was Then Accused Of Endangering People And Property. Pilot reports of inaccurate advisories on UNICOM regarding closed runway due to painting. 16 LDJ Uncontrolled Arpt 2 Sma Acft Plts Started Simultaneous Tkofs From Opposite Ends Of Same Rwy. Reporter Aborted His Tkof, Other Acft Continued Tkof. Pilot reports that UNICOM operator advised of proper procedures at the airport. 17 LNC Traffic Troubles At An Uncontrolled Arpt. Pilot reports of no response from UNICOM regarding runway closure. 18 BTP Plt Of Sma Landed At Uncontrolled Arpt On Rwy With Construction In Progress, Obscured X, Not Very Noticeable. Traffic Using Parallel Txwy For Lndg And Tkof. Notam Regarding Rwy Closed Had Been Issued. Pilot reports that UNICOM operator did not indicate runway was closed, and operations were being conducted on the taxiway. 19 15G Light plane pilot on takeoff roll at uncontrolled airport reports runway incursion by another aircraft taxiing for maintenance. Takeoff is aborted and other aircraft continues on across runway without communication. Pilot reports of near collision on runway with another aircraft, as well as vehicle-aircraft collision that recently occurred. 20 JYO A Pa28 Plt At Ctaf Jyo Describes A Tfc Conflict That He Experienced And Suggests Possible Mitigating Procs. Pilot reports conflicting advisory (runway in use) from UNICOM operator even though traffic was using another runway. Pilot considered this an incomplete airport advisory. Number Airport Identifier Synopsis Consultant Analysis TABLE 6 (continued)

Next: Chapter Five - Case Examples »
Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports Get This Book
×
 Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports
Buy Paperback | $51.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 75: Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports documents the manner in which non-towered airports provide advisories to pilots regarding winds, traffic, and runways in use. Unlike with pilot advisories, there is little guidance available for airport operators in providing airport advisories. The objective of this report is to aggregate available guidance on this topic and document information from non-towered airports with at least 50,000 annual aircraft operations. The report includes a literature review and a telephone interview survey of 165 non-towered airports. Six case examples are included, documenting effective airport advisory programs in place at airports.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!