EppyGA
Touchdown! Greaser!
Where do you get, one on the ground?
So I see later on where he/she clarified
I wouldn't consider one holding on the ground being in the pattern. The op seems to have a lot of his/her own terminology.
Where do you get, one on the ground?
So I see later on where he/she clarified
I wouldn't consider one holding on the ground being in the pattern. The op seems to have a lot of his/her own terminology.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Why not? What WOULD one expect?
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,602
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Short approach I expect some downwind past the runway, some base, and less than a 1/2 mile of final. But that there is a demonstrable straight line on final.
Engine out is a generally a curved approach with now straight final segment.
Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
What you consider a short approach I’d consider normal.
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
Its not that people don't understand what a short approach is, its that because there is no official definition of it, we don't understand what your idea of a short approach is. Does that mean a power off 180 from the downwind? It could. But it could also mean you're going to fly a 2 mile base to final instead of the normal 5 mile base to final that you normally fly in your bonanza or your mooney. Its only funny 'cause its true.
Its a non-standard generic term so while you might think you're being clear by using it, you're actually being anything but because the only thing you're really telling everyone else is that you're going to do something different than a normal pattern and that might be what we expect you'll do or it could be any number of other things. Actually saying 'bugsmasher 1234 will make a simulated engine out abeam the numbers take up a bit more time on the freq but is Tons more informative for all involved. Same with saying supercub downwind, I'll be keeping it inside the fence on this approach. You're using non-standard terms regardless of whether you say short approach or practice engine out from abeam the numbers. But at least with the second example, everyone will have a pretty good idea what you're intentions are.
I should also note that every time one of these discussions about pattern ops and CTAF radio procedures comes up, I read the comments (including my own) and I realize more and more why those that have space and the means to do so build their own private airports for their own exclusive use.
tawood
En-Route
This...if the OP had said, "Making a PO 180 from the downwind to final" I would have immediately known what he was doing...saying "short approach"? Not a clue...
danhagan
En-Route
AC on final wins MOST times, except you thought you were lower. I practice 180's a lot, but work it out with the other AC in the area (including the straight in's). FAR 91.113 below:
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Matthew Rogers
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,325
- Display Name
Display name:
Matt R
I just did my PPL checkride and the DPE was adamant that entry to the pattern at an uncontrolled field should always be made in accordance with the most recent AC the Un-towered Airports. Straight ins do not go against the regulations, but they can always go after you for reckless operation 91.13 if you caused an incident because you did not enter the traffic pattern first when others are in the pattern. Imagine an aircraft without a radio - it could do a straight in, but if it did not first enter the traffic pattern (at a 45 preferably) and caused an incident, it would most certainly be at fault. Radio calls may not be heard, stepped on, or the other aircraft in the pattern could be the ones without radios. In all those cases, the straight in aircraft would be the one that would take the blame in the case of an incident, right? I think the situations involving cubs or champs without radios would be the most telling cases to think about. How could you know if someone called a 5 mile final at a busy un-towered airport and then give them the right of way because they are on "final".
That's bizarre. So you announce what you want to do and everyone else is supposed to scatter and clear the pattern for you ? You do what you want to do and if the right of way rules require so, you adjust accordingly.
Just flew a practice gps approach. A sr22 was heading for the pattern just ahead of me. When he was on downwind, I was 3miles out. He extended downwind and we both landed. Somehow most pilots are able to get this done without hurt feelings.
Please point me to records of prior enforcement actions where the FAA/NTSB appeals decided that this is so ?
You are not 'causing an accident' by flying a straight in.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sounds like exactly what the straight-in did...announced his intentions and expected everyone else to scatter.
It also sounds like there was no actual traffic conflict, just somebody who got his panties in a wad because there was an airplane a mile and a half in front of him.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
He didn't. If he was on a 4 mile final there was no traffic conflict. Plenty of time for someone from downwind to make a 'short approach', 'keep it inside the fence' or 'power off 180' before he even got close to the field.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
...and got his panties in a wad because somebody was 1.5 miles in front of him.
That was the guy barging into the pattern with a right turn who claimed afterwards that this was the equivalent of a straight-in.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yup...and the NTSB said what I quoted, unless you can prove Ed Fred’s theory that Yodice didn’t know what he was talking about.
What you quoted was 'would, could, should' commentary in a unrelated decision.
What I am looking for is a case where someone did a straight-in and was violated because the NTSB held that the FARs don't mean what their plain text reading says.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,895
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Where's Cap'n Ron when you need him most?
Please. No.
I found a link for the article:
http://www.westhoustonairport.com/reference/pdfs/2013-11-AOPA-Straight-In-Approaches.pdf
The regulations he cited do not say who has the right-of-way; they say that you can't make a right turn if left traffic is specified for the airport. In the two cases he cited, the pilots were sanctioned for making their turns to final in the wrong direction. And in one of the cases, the NTSB held that the pilot interfered with an aircraft on a practice instrument approach, not an aircraft in the pattern.
Earlier in the article, he also said that the two cases he cited 'by no means settle the issue" of "what is a valid straight-in approach?"
As luck would have it, he's weighing in on this very subject on the red board!Where's Cap'n Ron when you need him most?
https://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p=1989162#post1989162
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Agreed...but the “would, could, should” statement also exists, and has not been challenged legally AFAIK.
By the way, this subject has been discussed here before.
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/flying-straight-in-at-uncontrolled-field.103937/
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/flying-straight-in-at-uncontrolled-field.103937/
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you read the AOPA article reference right turns and proximity to the traffic pattern and the FAA’s new traffic pattern AC, you quickly realize a tear drop pattern entry using a right turn associated with a left traffic pattern is a violation.
Well, Dtuuri's link leads to a guy in the pattern getting sanctioned for refusing to yield the right-of-way to aircraft on final, so that might constitute a challenge. On the other hand, the following quote from your earlier post (which I believe is a quote from the Rivard case, which is apparently not available on line) muddies the waters considerably. Between that and some of the guidance that the FAA has written, there is enough confusion so that my policy is to never expect anyone to yield the right-of-way in the vicinity of an airport, regardless of where I am!
"Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern."
By the way, this subject has been discussed here before.
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/flying-straight-in-at-uncontrolled-field.103937/
A number of times.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,930
- Location
- hopefully not at work
- Display Name
Display name:
Meet the Fokkers
We always said 'short final' instead of short approach if it was anything out of the ordinary pattern turns, such as a power off 180.
If it's a long straight in approach I'll announce like others have said, at 10,5,3,1 miles etc.
If anybody responds back and they are in the pattern or holding short for me, I will immediately respond back that I'm joining the downwind (at appropriate procedure) and possibly even extending downwind so that they can take off.
If I got to pee so bad that I need to cut them off, I'm better off taking my time to land anyway so I don't scare myself a little.
If it's a long straight in approach I'll announce like others have said, at 10,5,3,1 miles etc.
If anybody responds back and they are in the pattern or holding short for me, I will immediately respond back that I'm joining the downwind (at appropriate procedure) and possibly even extending downwind so that they can take off.
If I got to pee so bad that I need to cut them off, I'm better off taking my time to land anyway so I don't scare myself a little.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Maybe the just go after the *******s that endanger others.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I knew it, I just knew it!
bflynn
Final Approach
Why do you think he did not understand? Maybe he understood perfectly and just worked himself in. Maybe he had a sick passenger or needed to pee. Maybe he was just a jerk who thinks the world revolves around him. It isn’t going to change the past and it will not prevent others from doing the same in the future.
He was on final and called it. Regardless of whether he got there politely or rudely, safely or unsafely, it doesn’t change his position. All you can fault him with is pattern entry. Pattern entry is not regulated.
Your call or announcement did not confer any special rights upon you.
How far out was he, did you have him in sight ?
It's good that you give others a heads-up on what your intentions are, but this is not like callling 'shotgun' to where the call alone gives you priority.
Where was he at this point, did you have him in sight ?
At that point, did you have the traffic on final in sight ?
What type of aircraft ? At 120kts you cover 2 miles/minute. So without pulling out a micrometer, it's not that far fetched that he covered 2.5mi in the time between calls.
Where was he relative to the airport, did you have the aircraft on final in sight ?
Good.Thats how it is supposed to work
Cooter
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 2,412
- Display Name
Display name:
Cooter
I’m with those who are surprised that “short approach” is so confusing. It almost hints at purposefully ignoring the obvious.
In this case, the thing that caught my attention is that the OP descended to 400’ on a power off 180’, then turned back to downwind instead of climbing out ahead. If you were early in the turn, you should be able to visually clear final. If you were mostly through the turn, turning back to downwind seems like a bad option.
In this case, the thing that caught my attention is that the OP descended to 400’ on a power off 180’, then turned back to downwind instead of climbing out ahead. If you were early in the turn, you should be able to visually clear final. If you were mostly through the turn, turning back to downwind seems like a bad option.
dtuuri
Final Approach
These. You don't turn in front of an airplane on final you can't see. You could get run over, for one thing. Another thing, you don't make a final less than 1/4 mile long, as per the AIM, if that's what you were planning (?) even on a "short approach", which is what's confusing to me--I don't know what the heck you were thinking of doing, maybe something much less than that? Another thing, you cut the engine 1000' from the numbers, why? Did you maintain pattern altitude to the end of the runway or start descending then too (a "no, no") which is what I think, since you got down to 400' on base leg which as a general rule is the lowest altitude you should be at when turning final and much too low to be early in the base leg. And another thing, my back of the envelope calculations have you and the traffic calling 4 miles out in a dead heat for the numbers (7:1 glide ratio, 70 KIAS descent, 80 average on downwind).
IMHO.
Last edited:
bflynn
Final Approach
It is not a FAA action that you are concerned with. It is a civil case claiming you didn’t do what was recommended and now you owe 450 million dollars.
Please show me a civil case (outside of Cook county) where someone was found liable for causing an accident' based on flying a straight in approach.
bflynn
Final Approach
No. I do not do extensive legal research like that. It is possible that it has never happened, but that doesn’t mean you avoid liability if you ignore FAA guidance on this topic. The court records are full of people who got sued for something for the first time ever.
Just go out and be a reasonably prudent pilot and you won’t have a problem.
Just go out and be a reasonably prudent pilot and you won’t have a problem.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
On a short approach call I would expect the aircraft to fly a rectangular pattern with the base leg closer to the runway than normal, not an an immediate turn from downwind to the threshold.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
What hog wash. the FAA clearly states that straight in approaches are acceptable.
9.5 Straight-In Landings. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed or when operating from an unfamiliar airport. However, there are occasions where a pilot can choose to execute a straight-in approach for landing when not intending to enter the traffic pattern, such as a visual approach executed as part of the termination of an instrument approach. Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final.
Hank S
En-Route
Yep, that's how straight in landings are supppsed to work.
But what seems tomhave happened her is that the guy in straight in, with two planes actively in the pattern, barged in, "called" final from way out and expected everyone to clear out of his way. What tyoe of "coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft" does that sound like? None is what it sounds like.
Fly straight in if you want to, but if there is traffic in the pattern, the straight in guy should either coordinate to blend in without disrupting them, or join the pattern. It's called playing nicely, obeying the rules and not being selfish and bull-headed. Just read the nice quote above for what the FAA says.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Naw, the OP expected everyone to get out of HIS way by making a short approach call on crosswind, crosswind! "Beep, beep, hot stuff coming through!" The guy straight-in sounded like he was turned over after a straight-in IFR approach and promptly announced his intentions. When he first heard the OP make his (second) call from the downwind, it sounded like he was turning final already, but since the OP wasn't in sight he gave his own position a mile and a half on final. At that point the straight-in pilot would be at, what, 450 ft? And the OP was where, downwind turning base, presumably at or near 1000 feet AGL, if adhering to AIM guidance, or actually at the same altitude (on the horizon line on base leg) closer to the runway than AIM guidance allows? No wonder the straight-in pilot couldn't find him.
At least, that's my take on it. YMMV.
Last edited: