Announcing full stop/ touch n’ go on Unicom

In IF when using Unicom, you do not have the option to report final for full stop nor touch n’ go. We need this feature to be added as it’s an important thing to let other traffic know of your intentions.
Currently in IF: Los Angeles Unicom, N192JW is on final runway 25R
My request: Los Angeles Unicom, N192JW is on final runway 25R, full stop/ touch n’ go

I completely agree with you; I think this is a great idea. Please make sure you vote for your own feature.


I would change it from “Announcing” but other wise great Idea, also booting for your own topic is a good idea😀

1 Like

There already is. “CALLSIGN is inbound, touch and go.” There is no need to add this.

Second, if it’s Unicom, chances are that you are the only one at the airport.

Lastly, even if you aren’t, as long as you use “is on …” for your position, then people know what you are doing.

To conclude, this feature is useless, assuming you know how to use a Unicom frequency.

1 Like

I’m talking about when reporting position.

Not necessarily.

But they don’t know if you’re doing a full stop or a touch n’ go.


Why would we need “Full stop/ touch n’ go”? I understand that you think it is important but I think we have been moving along nicely with what we currently have.


This is a good idea. It would be useful when reporting your position and so others know your intentions.

Ok well then say inbound after the touch and go. That’s kinda what it means. You are coming for a touch and go.

You got to my point, we don’t need to announce inbound for landing again. You just report position full stop.

I understand what you are saying… I just don’t think we need it.

Well that’s how it is in real life.

IMO I think it’s needed. It’s incorrect to call inbound for landing when you are already remaining the pattern, which is when you would use this.

It confuses everyone around you when you say “TR10 is on left crosswind” then “TR10 is on left downwind” then “TR10 inbound for landing runway 09, left traffic”. What?

It’s simple enough that I don’t know why it couldn’t be added.


Good idea, can’t see a drawback to its implementation. Just won’t be a priority thing.