Narrative:

First; I am an ATP with about 21000 hours as well as a background as a military cto (air traffic controller). I am also a CFI with over 4000 hours as an instructor and also hold a ground instructor certificate. I am presently employed as a corporate pilot flying out of the south florida area. The first safety problem concerns uncontrolled fields with instrument approaches. The FAA insists on publishing CTAF call signs that are improper or not used. If the airport is named 'X' but the CTAF used is 'Y;' they show 'X' on the charts where the locals don't recognize or understand it and use 'Y.' for example: palm beach county airport located in the city of lantana; fl; but shown under west palm beach (identification: lna) is known as lantana airport and most of the signage reflects that. The CTAF call sign used is 'lantana unicom' and is a busy training center for student pilots. The AWOS says palm beach county airpark; lantana; fl. The approach chart shows palm beach county park unicom. Strangers often come in not recognizing lantana unicom (and vice versa) and a conflict occurs. A few months ago; I shouted a warning over the frequency (122.7) and a three way midair was narrowly averted between a cheyenne; a helicopter; and a small cessna by less than 100 ft. Another example is palm beach county glades airport (phk) in pahokee. The actual CTAF is 'pahokee unicom' but the FAA publishes 'palm beach county glades unicom.' with all the palm beach county airports this causes dangerous confusion. Chances of tragedy are increased as a result. Elsewhere; another example: weedon field; eufaula; alabama. The actual CTAF is eufaula unicom yet the FAA publishes weedon unicom which is unrecognized by locals. Several years ago I had to shoot the VOR approach to minimums there (700 ft). Upon breaking out I narrowly missed another airplane; shot a missed approach followed by another approach. I was using the incorrect but published 'weedon unicom.' I landed and got reamed out by the then airport manager for not using 'eufaula unicom.' while in many cases the actual CTAF is the official airport name; in many cases it is not. The FAA should not make assumptions and correct this situation. It may save some lives. The second safety situation concerns runway numbering. Runways have always been numbered according to the correct magnetic heading of the runway. For example a runway of 92 degrees magnetic heading should be numbered '9;' a runway of 98 degrees should be labeled '10;' etc. They should be numbered to the nearest 5 degrees. The commercial charts do show the current runway magnetic heading but the nos/FAA show it as it was years ago. On the checklists of older planes; the old dg's were set to the runway number before takeoff. On modern airplanes at least a check of alignment with the runway (compass versus runway) should be made. However; many runways; especially in southeast florida; are not properly numbered. Runway 13 at fort lauderdale international (fll) is 141 degrees (it should be runway 14); runway 8 at fort lauderdale executive (fxe) is 87 degrees (it should be runway 9); runway 9L at palm beach international is 98 degrees (it should be runway 10L); etc. I have seen runways numbered as much as 25 degrees off! Some airports seem not to like to number runways left; right; etc; so all their parallels have a different number. If two parallel runways they should be left and right; if three -- left; C and right -- not 7; 8; and 9! It is difficult to explain to students runway alignments when the numbers do not match or when the inbound course is quite different from the runway number. Safety is involved when confusion occurs. At miami international (mia); many airline pilots have complained about the runway numbering. The magnetic heading of the three parallels is 92 degrees yet they are numbered runways 8L; 8R; and 9. The confusion; especially under VMC; is obvious. At lna; mentioned earlier under communications; all the runways are off. The local FSDO just shrugs its shoulders -- 'politics!'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORPORATE PILOT REPORTS CONFUSION CAUSED AT CTAF ARPTS BY PILOTS USING FAA DESIGNATED NAME INSTEAD OF WHAT IS COMMONLY USED AT THAT ARPT. ALSO QUESTIONS RWY DESIGNATIONS DIFFERENT FROM THEIR MAGNETIC HEADINGS.

Narrative: FIRST; I AM AN ATP WITH ABOUT 21000 HOURS AS WELL AS A BACKGROUND AS A MILITARY CTO (AIR TFC CTLR). I AM ALSO A CFI WITH OVER 4000 HOURS AS AN INSTRUCTOR AND ALSO HOLD A GROUND INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE. I AM PRESENTLY EMPLOYED AS A CORPORATE PLT FLYING OUT OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA AREA. THE FIRST SAFETY PROB CONCERNS UNCONTROLLED FIELDS WITH INSTRUMENT APPROACHES. THE FAA INSISTS ON PUBLISHING CTAF CALL SIGNS THAT ARE IMPROPER OR NOT USED. IF THE ARPT IS NAMED 'X' BUT THE CTAF USED IS 'Y;' THEY SHOW 'X' ON THE CHARTS WHERE THE LOCALS DON'T RECOGNIZE OR UNDERSTAND IT AND USE 'Y.' FOR EXAMPLE: PALM BEACH COUNTY ARPT LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LANTANA; FL; BUT SHOWN UNDER WEST PALM BEACH (ID: LNA) IS KNOWN AS LANTANA ARPT AND MOST OF THE SIGNAGE REFLECTS THAT. THE CTAF CALL SIGN USED IS 'LANTANA UNICOM' AND IS A BUSY TRAINING CTR FOR STUDENT PLTS. THE AWOS SAYS PALM BEACH COUNTY AIRPARK; LANTANA; FL. THE APCH CHART SHOWS PALM BEACH COUNTY PARK UNICOM. STRANGERS OFTEN COME IN NOT RECOGNIZING LANTANA UNICOM (AND VICE VERSA) AND A CONFLICT OCCURS. A FEW MONTHS AGO; I SHOUTED A WARNING OVER THE FREQ (122.7) AND A THREE WAY MIDAIR WAS NARROWLY AVERTED BETWEEN A CHEYENNE; A HELI; AND A SMALL CESSNA BY LESS THAN 100 FT. ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS PALM BEACH COUNTY GLADES ARPT (PHK) IN PAHOKEE. THE ACTUAL CTAF IS 'PAHOKEE UNICOM' BUT THE FAA PUBLISHES 'PALM BEACH COUNTY GLADES UNICOM.' WITH ALL THE PALM BEACH COUNTY ARPTS THIS CAUSES DANGEROUS CONFUSION. CHANCES OF TRAGEDY ARE INCREASED AS A RESULT. ELSEWHERE; ANOTHER EXAMPLE: WEEDON FIELD; EUFAULA; ALABAMA. THE ACTUAL CTAF IS EUFAULA UNICOM YET THE FAA PUBLISHES WEEDON UNICOM WHICH IS UNRECOGNIZED BY LOCALS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO I HAD TO SHOOT THE VOR APCH TO MINIMUMS THERE (700 FT). UPON BREAKING OUT I NARROWLY MISSED ANOTHER AIRPLANE; SHOT A MISSED APCH FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER APCH. I WAS USING THE INCORRECT BUT PUBLISHED 'WEEDON UNICOM.' I LANDED AND GOT REAMED OUT BY THE THEN ARPT MANAGER FOR NOT USING 'EUFAULA UNICOM.' WHILE IN MANY CASES THE ACTUAL CTAF IS THE OFFICIAL ARPT NAME; IN MANY CASES IT IS NOT. THE FAA SHOULD NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AND CORRECT THIS SITUATION. IT MAY SAVE SOME LIVES. THE SECOND SAFETY SITUATION CONCERNS RWY NUMBERING. RWYS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NUMBERED ACCORDING TO THE CORRECT MAGNETIC HEADING OF THE RWY. FOR EXAMPLE A RWY OF 92 DEGS MAGNETIC HEADING SHOULD BE NUMBERED '9;' A RWY OF 98 DEGS SHOULD BE LABELED '10;' ETC. THEY SHOULD BE NUMBERED TO THE NEAREST 5 DEGS. THE COMMERCIAL CHARTS DO SHOW THE CURRENT RWY MAGNETIC HDG BUT THE NOS/FAA SHOW IT AS IT WAS YEARS AGO. ON THE CHKLISTS OF OLDER PLANES; THE OLD DG'S WERE SET TO THE RWY NUMBER BEFORE TKOF. ON MODERN AIRPLANES AT LEAST A CHK OF ALIGNMENT WITH THE RWY (COMPASS VERSUS RWY) SHOULD BE MADE. HOWEVER; MANY RWYS; ESPECIALLY IN SE FLORIDA; ARE NOT PROPERLY NUMBERED. RWY 13 AT FORT LAUDERDALE INTL (FLL) IS 141 DEGS (IT SHOULD BE RWY 14); RWY 8 AT FORT LAUDERDALE EXECUTIVE (FXE) IS 87 DEGS (IT SHOULD BE RWY 9); RWY 9L AT PALM BEACH INTL IS 98 DEGS (IT SHOULD BE RWY 10L); ETC. I HAVE SEEN RWYS NUMBERED AS MUCH AS 25 DEGS OFF! SOME ARPTS SEEM NOT TO LIKE TO NUMBER RWYS L; R; ETC; SO ALL THEIR PARALLELS HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER. IF TWO PARALLEL RWYS THEY SHOULD BE L AND R; IF THREE -- L; C AND R -- NOT 7; 8; AND 9! IT IS DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN TO STUDENTS RWY ALIGNMENTS WHEN THE NUMBERS DO NOT MATCH OR WHEN THE INBOUND COURSE IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE RWY NUMBER. SAFETY IS INVOLVED WHEN CONFUSION OCCURS. AT MIAMI INTL (MIA); MANY AIRLINE PLTS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE RWY NUMBERING. THE MAGNETIC HDG OF THE THREE PARALLELS IS 92 DEGS YET THEY ARE NUMBERED RWYS 8L; 8R; AND 9. THE CONFUSION; ESPECIALLY UNDER VMC; IS OBVIOUS. AT LNA; MENTIONED EARLIER UNDER COMMUNICATIONS; ALL THE RWYS ARE OFF. THE LOCAL FSDO JUST SHRUGS ITS SHOULDERS -- 'POLITICS!'

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.