Immagine, you are at an unmanned airfield and its layout requires a backtrack in order to depart on, say, runway 03. This will hence require you to taxi down runway 21.
What do you call on the radio?
“backtracking on runway 03” (actually wrong, but most people tend to say so)
“backtracking on runway 21” (might confuse other people as to which runway is “in use”)
Personally, on order to avoid any of this, I call
“backtracking for departure on runway 03”. I think this is the least ambiguous.
Thoughts?
If 03 is in use then 21 does not exist, so to speak, so you could not do anything on it. Neither do I think it ambiguous to say “backtracking on 03”, the “back” bit makes it obvious that you are going against the normal sense. Do you have a source, to confirm that “backtracking on 03” is actually wrong?
Still, your idea has something to say for it. It has the added advantage of telling people what you are doing and also your intention of taking off.
I must admit the issue never occurred to me as I mostly use grass fields.
I wonder how they do it in French, where the concept of an “active” runway is, hmm, not universally applied.
That’s exactly the point. At unmanned airfields, there really isn’t something like an “active runway”. One pilot could use 03 and if the next one prefers 21 he can take that one (assuming there is no traffic to affect). As a principle, only the pilot decides which runway to use. So the statement
If 03 is in use then 21 does not exist
doesn’t hold up.
I’ve wondered about this before – and had two different answers from instructors.
“Backtrack runway 03-21” is my personal favourite.
“Backtrack runway 03” looks like the correct call in the UK (according to CAP413), but I agree there is ambiguity there. I think this follows Jan’s logic.
Edit: doesn’t look like there is specific guidance in CAP413 for A/G or self-announcing airfields, all the guidance is for Tower and AFIS situations.
Perhaps this is why we do an overhead join so that we can see what is going on below. If you are back tracking a runway then that is what you anounce. Backtracking implies you are travelling in the reverse direction to possible traffic and Runway 03 implies which physical runway you are referring to.
“backtracking for departure on runway 03”. I think this is the least ambiguous.
I disagree, you could be backtracking on any runway with the ultimate intention of departing on 03! Thus it conveys no clear location whereas “Backtracking 03” gives a clear indication that you are on 03 heading for the threshold of that runway.
Back to basic RT
WHO are you? Callsign/Type
WHERE are you? On Runway 03
WHAT do you want? To notify other traffic you are backtracking 03
From www.vatpac.org
[PILOT] “Alpha Bravo Charlie is ready for departure, Runway 25, we’d like to backtrack and use the full length”
[TWR] "Alpha Bravo Charlie, …. cleared to enter and backtrack Runway 25.
[PILOT] “Backtracking Runway 25, …. Alpha Bravo Charlie”
PILOT Bendigo Traffic, Saratoga Mike Papa Romeo, taxiing Runway 17, Bendigo
PILOT Bendigo Traffic, Saratoga Mike Papa Romeo, entering to backtrack Runway 17, Bendigo
PILOT Bendigo Traffic, Saratoga Mike Papa Romeo, rolling Runway 17 for south-east departure, Bendigo
[PILOT] “Mildura traffic, …. Regional Eleven Twenty-Four, a Saab 340, entering to backtrack Runway 27”
[PILOT] “Mildura traffic, …. Regional Eleven Twenty-Four, rolling Runway 27 for Melbourne”
In these cases (all from dununder) backtracking is meant to “go the other way”, as opposed to “forward-tracking”. That is the way I do it. But I agree with boscomantico that “backtracking for departure on runway 03" is least ambigous. I don’t think that could be read to mean backtracking on any runway. If you are on a runway that you do not intend to use for take-off, and that you have not just landed on, you are not back-tracking, but taxying.
I disagree, you could be backtracking on any runway with the ultimate intention of departing on 03!
I get the point, but one would normally only call it “backtracking” on that physical runway that is intended for departure. On any other runway, one would simply call it “taxying” (e.g. “taxying via runway 09 to the holding point runway 03”).
In these cases (all from dununder) backtracking is meant to “go the other way”, as opposed to “forward-tracking”. That is the way I do it.
Yes, it seems that this is the general consensus.
I backtracked today, although the airfield is A/G, not unmanned, but I said “backtracking runway 29” as that was the ‘active’ runway I just landed on. Although facing the opposite (110 degrees), it would seem to me to be confusing to say “backtracking runway 11” as it might give the appearance to anyone else in the air, that runway 11 was in use.
At unmanned airfields, there really isn’t something like an “active runway”
Only a detail in this discussion, the more so that I cannot imagine a single aerodrome in BE where backtracking would be needed; yet allow me to disagree. Here in BE, there are a good many fields where the frequency is only used interpilot; though generally someone on the ground will have a handset ready, they’ll rarely use it. Yet the active runway is strictly adhered to, anyone landing the other way would a least get a solid bashing. Rightly too, because it really is unexpected, thus dangerous. In practice, such fields should be considered “unmanned”.
I learned – and I firmly believe it is ICAO standard ruling, though I haven’t checked – to join overhead, 500’ above circuit, and check the signal square
But again, this does not hold true in France, where a/d operators are actively encouraged to do away with signal squares.
BTW your DFS seems now to allow operations with no radio operator on the ground? Are those fields still considered “manned” but by a machine rather than by a human?
Allow me to disagree, too. 
In the international context, the very majority of airfields is unmanned and doesn’t even have a signal square. There is generally no such thing as a runway in use there. The pilot decides.
Here in BE, there are a good many fields where the frequency is only used interpilot; though generally someone on the ground will have a handset ready, they’ll rarely use it. Yet the active runway is strictly adhered to, anyone landing the other way would a least get a solid bashing.
a) sounds weird (again, assuming traffic doesn’t play a role and there is no “preferred runway” arrangement)
b) anyway, I was referring to airfields without a radio operator
