I am thinking especially of airports like San Marcos, Texas (KHYI) which has three runways which conflict with each other. How is the pilot supposed to make sure that no one in the air or on the ground will foul the runway after he/she is committed to a landing or takeoff?
On a related note, do those huge rotating beacon lights really help? How do pilots use those? In big cities, at least, it seems like it’s just one more bright blinking light in a sea of bright, blinking lights.
Private Pilot here…
Communication is done over the local radio channel among any aircraft in the area, combined with lots of eyeballing and wing-dipping to look for traffic. There are also right-of-way rules that help if it seems 2 aircraft are heading to the same spot.
e.g. “Cessna 12345W entering downwind for runway 24L”
It works just fine for low traffic, but once you get more than a few airplanes in the pattern or runway (4 or 5) it gets stressful (for me anyway). There are some chronically busy fields that I avoided like the plague, as the radio chatter sounded like someone had put a team of auctioneers into a box and given it a vigorous shake.
It is often just a patient “wait your turn” where you can loiter in the vicinity until the traffic dies down, then slip in for your turn. 
Same as we do at other airports. We look around. If we don’t see other approaching aircraft, we go final. And we look some more.
What, do you really think those tower guys are infallible?
Most airports that don’t have towers - and more than a few that do - are not all that busy. Non-tower fields all have a CTAF (Common Traffic Advisory Frequency) for the purpose of radio calls from pilots using the airfield. Since everyone wants to avoid problems and there’s a strong tradition of cooperation in doing so, it generally works quite well.
About 95 percent of the US’s airports are NOT tower-controlled (cite)
Some FAA reading on the procedures.
What they said ^ … with a couple more bits added.
Even at an airport with a tower there is the possibility of someone/something interfering with a landing. People in ground vehicles pull onto the wrong patch of pavement, pilots and/or controllers make mistakes, and birds, deer, and other wildlife do not speak with air traffic control or make radio announcements. For this reason, at ANY airport, pilots monitor the situation, including looking to either side of a runway as well as at a runway, to note anything that might potentially be a problem. During take-off, landing, and ground operations pilots are ready to take action to prevent accidents of any sort, whether dodging errant humans, frightened deer, migratory birds, or handling on board emergencies (such as happened at Heathrow this week). At busy airports air traffic control and various other things assist in maintaining vigilance, but rest assured the pilots are also very much paying attention and ready to take any required action.
As for runways “conflicting” with each other - the direction for take-off and landing is usually dictated by the wind direction. If there’s a 20 mph wind the pilots will know, by it’s direction, which runway is most likely to be in use so most of the time there isn’t a conflict. One of the two exceptions would be very calm days, when potentially any runway could be in use, but many, if not most, such airports will state in their published data which runway is preferred in such conditions to help avoid that confusion. If a pilot is in any doubt, and even if he/she is not, the pilot can ask over the radio which runway is “active” and/or circle at a safe distance to observe actual traffic. The second exception is when one runway is very much longer than the others and a large plane has to land on the big runway because of size. I used to encounter this at Palwaukee (now “Chicago Executive” I believe). In my dinky Cessna 150 I could use any of the runways, even the very short 24, but business jets had to use the big runway. So when I heard something like “Gulfstream inbound for landing” I already knew which runway that plane would be one even before ATC made it official.
Yes, particularly in low daytime visibility and at night.
They help us locate an airport. In some ways they’re more visible from the air than the ground. Yes, it’s another bright, blinking light but it’s a different bright, blinking light than the others.
In addition to using the radio and having a good look out, some busy aerodromes (in Australia at least) have a ground radio operator who is able to pass on traffic and weather information but has no controlling authority. It works fairly well with moderate traffic levels but when it gets busy it multiplies the number of radio calls.
TCAS is another tool that helps with traffic separation. It provides a display of where other aircraft are and gives avoidance directions if any get too close. It relies on the other aircraft all having a working transponder though.
I recently had to hold with engines running on the ground at Broome, which is uncontrolled, for 40 minutes while a stream of inbound aircraft landed.
Yes they do. Last week I ferried an aircraft to Adelaide at night. I’ve flown into Adelaide once about two years ago, it was daytime and we were given radar vectors to an instrument approach. At the end of the approach the runway’s right in front of you, can’t miss it. This time it was night and I was given instructions to track direct to a final then call tower. All I could see was a sea of city lights. The runway lights themselves are quite dim and even the dark patch that surrounds the airport wasn’t that obvious. I could make out the rotating beacon from about 10 miles out though. It’s brighter than all the other blinking lights and has a much slower frequency.
As a former manager of a low traffic 3-triangular-runway airport, we had a fixed-base operator (FBO) who handled the “Unicom” radio to control traffic. The rotating beacon, as mentioned above, was to help pilots find the airport in low visibility conditions. It was a source of complaint only from some of the idiots who bought houses in the subdivision that was allowed to be built at the end of the tertiary runway. The FBO at our 'port was a contractor hired to sell fuel to pilots, rent hangar space, man the radio, and mow lawns.
Pilots’ ability to land at untowered fields is no more mysterious than drivers’ ability to enter freeways without a traffic cop. You watch where you’re going, watch what other drivers are doing, and fit yourself into the flow. The only difference for pilots is that we use the radio too, both to announce our own positions and intentions (using standardized terminology and grammar), and listen for other pilots doing the same. Well, some of us use the radio exclusively instead of looking too, but forget that some planes don’t have them or are on the wrong frequency.
Airport beacons do stand out well from the air, because they’re color-coded and blink at a recognizable rate. Civil land airport have alternating green and white colors, for instance. From the air, they do indeed stand out, especially when you look for them next to unusually long straight lines that indicate runways. To be sure, if the airport is right next to a built-up and brightly lit area, you can turn the runway lights on (by repeatedly clicking the mike button) and look for something bright to jump out.
In Canada this is usually called a Flight Service Station – in radio communication they’re called “Radio”, as in “North Bay Radio” instead of “Toronto Tower”. The people in the FSS monitor traffic on the air, and usually have the authority to control ground movements (including taxiing aircraft), and may have the full set of equipment that tower controllers do (radar, weather info, etc).
Instead of ‘control’, they provide an ‘airport advisory service’, wherein they can advise aircraft of hazards and current events. They might warn you about traffic inbound or that might conflict with you, tell you which runway is in use and what the winds are, or advise aircraft to keep clear because the airport has been closed for an emergency. In some cases, such as an uncontrolled airport which has airline service, they can relay clearances from other control centres. The airport where I’ve done most of my flying does this – here’s what you might hear while an airliner is taxiing to the runway:
“Jazz 7772 this is North Bay Radio with your clearance”
“Radio, Jazz 7772 is ready, go ahead”
“Toronto Centre clears Jazz 7772 North Bay to Toronto via [a specified route]…”
(Jazz will read back the important bits of the clearance to confirm, and the next report will be to enter the runway and take off.)
Meanwhile, the rest of the aircraft flying around are uncontrolled, but still getting valuable information from FSS. The airliner, which is flown on instruments, needs the control service, and it gets it by relay. So basically, FSS represents an intermediate step between the completely controlled international airport where every aircraft is routed and timed as dictated by the controllers, and the small grass field in the middle of the forest where a keen eye and attention to the radio keep airplanes apart.
There are similarities with our system. Ours are called a CA/GRS (Certified Air/Ground Radio Service.) They are allowed to provide information but have no authority to control anything. They also don’t have authority to pass on clearances as far as I know. At our airfield there is VHF comms with the Area Controller so you can get clearances direct. Also a clearance is not required until FL180.
To be honest, our system is a bit of a root. When taxiing on the ground we need to talk to the CA/GRO and local traffic on one frequency while talking and monitoring another frequency to get traffic information on IFR aircraft and to start our SARWatch with the Area Controller.
In places where there is no direct VHF contact with a controller there is HF contact with Flight Service who can relay traffic and clearance information.
The callsign of the CA/GRO is “Radio” the same as the Canadian system. So in Broome he’s called “Broome Radio.”
Given what we see happen on way too many freeways, I’m thinking it had better be a bit more mysterious. 
As a general rule, airplane pilots are smart enough not to tailgate.
Now if we could just cultivate that tradition in drivers… As an aside, has anyone compiled stats to see if pilots are statistically better or safer drivers than the rest of us?
Bambi 351, please clear the runway!
Sometimes they don’t :eek:
Collision over Corona leaves 5 dead
I’ve ridden in a vehicle which was being used to chase not one but 3 giraffes off a runway so that the light aircraft scheduled to take us to our next destination could safely land.
The giraffes meandered off the runway more due to annoyance than fear. We then parked near an elephant to discourage it from meandering onto the runway, until after both airplanes had landed and taken off.
(This was in Africa, was not an airport, just a level grass strip used on a regular basis for dropping off supplies and tourists and retrieving tourists. )
What always gets me about these stories is how big a deal they make about it being AIRPLANES!!! You can have a 50 car pile-up on the freeway, which to my mind is much more tragic, without getting nearly the media frenzy over a very unfortunate airplane accident that kills fewer people and destroys less property. Yes, it’s frightening and horrible - so are crashes on the road.
Sorry, it isn’t really. The major difference is that airplanes are spaced by half a mile or so, minimum, not by a few meters - IF the “drivers” are paying attention to other traffic visually as well as aurally. Speed differences exist but are accommodated by spacing.
The similarities run even deeper, actually - freeways have lanes to follow and defined ramps with proper entry procedure, and airplanes have prescribed traffic patterns (the “lanes” are in 3D and pretty wide, but they’re real), also with proper entry procedures. Violate freeway procedures as a driver and you’ll get a horn or a finger or some kind of road rage incident. Violate pattern rules at the airport and you’ll get a talking to on the ground. The only difference is that it will be much more polite and friendly. Usually.
wolfstu, Flight Service in the US is almost a thing of the past, as you may have heard. Fortunately Web applications have taken up the role.
It’s 'cause airplanes are ATOMIC!!!