1.5 NM short final

1

1.5 NM short final

Guest
Earlier today I was practicing power-off 180s at a non-towered airport, when the following happened. There were two other aircraft in the pattern following left traffic. The incident below involves a fourth aircraft coming straight in.

  • After a touch-and-go, I called my left crosswind on CTAF, stating "short approach".
  • After my crosswind call, inbound aircraft announced position 4 NM to the north, for the same runway.
  • On downwind, I announce position again stating "short approach".
  • Abeam the 1000' markers, I cut to idle, and I announce "short approach, base to final".
  • While into the base, the aircraft previously at 4 NM to the north, announced "1.5 NM final, short final".
  • The moment I hear "short final", I break off my approach, I enter into an extended downwind to follow the aircraft on "short final", and I announce on CTAF that I am breaking off my approach, and than I am now #2.

Breaking off my approach was the safe thing to do. If the other aircraft had the right of way, I should have yielded to him anyway. If I had the right of way, well, what's the point of arguing rules after a midair collision?

Did I cut off in front of the airplane coming straight in, or did he cut me off?

At the time I broke off my approach I was at about 400 AGL and I believe -- but I am not certain -- that I was the lowest flying aircraft, and closest to the runway.
 
I wasn’t there so I don’t know who was right, lower, whatever. From what you describe you could have continued and the S-I traffic would have followed you. Sounds like the S-I was ****ing with you and you bailed first.
 
The straight in ,probably assumed you where calling short approach so you could cut them off.The good thing is that you bailed and nobody got hurt.
 
I am trying to understand this. Sounds like you tried to cut in front of someone on final and he wasnt all that thrilled about it.
 
“1.5 mile final, short final” is a lie unless he was talking REALLY slowly.

Beyond that, if you wanted to get into a ****ing contest with him, my belief based on violation history (and I know others here disagree with my interpretation of those violation outcomes) is that as a straight in, he should have yielded the right of way.
 
If I heard someone call crosswind adding 'short approach' to the call, I wouldn't have a clue what they meant nor what they intended to do. The only thing I'd know for sure is they were likely intending to do something out of the ordinary. Though it probably runs afoul of the AIM, when I've been in situations where I wanted to do a quick power off 180 from abeam the numbers to touchdown, I would just make normal radio calls unless and until there was someone on an extended straight in at which point I would ask the straight in aircraft directly if they had me in sight and if so, did I have 30 seconds to chop and drop and scoot in tight or should I extend to come in behind them (assuming I did not yet have them in sight).
 
Juliet Hotel said:
If I heard someone call crosswind adding 'short approach' to the call, I wouldn't have a clue what they meant nor what they intended to do. The only thing I'd know for sure is they were likely intending to do something out of the ordinary. Though it probably runs afoul of the AIM, when I've been in situations where I wanted to do a quick power off 180 from abeam the numbers to touchdown, I would just make normal radio calls unless and until there was someone on an extended straight in at which point I would ask the straight in aircraft directly if they had me in sight and if so, did I have 30 seconds to chop and drop and scoot in tight or should I extend to come in behind them (assuming I did not yet have them in sight).
Click to expand...
If you heard someone calling “short approach” or any other terminology you didn’t understand, it would be your responsibility to clarify either their intent or that what you were doing wouldn’t conflict.

Regardless of whether they said ATITAPA. ;)
 
I’m not going to try and make a call on who did or didn’t cut the other off between the two of you. I am thinking about the other two that you said were in in the pattern. Had they already landed or were they behind Following you? I’m not a big fan of turning back out to downwind after already being on base. If you had it to do over, when you decided to abandon the approach, do you think just continuing the left turn and going around might have been a better thing to do.
 
What type aircraft did the straight in? With three aircraft in the pattern, I'm inclined to say the guy four miles north should have swung around to enter on a forty-five unless he was something like a corporate jet or King Air. Just me but I'll do a straight in only if I can sequence myself in without affecting aircraft already in the pattern.
 
OP here, with additional information based on comments and feedback so far.
  • The four aircraft mentioned in my OP were all small single-engine ones; specifically:
    • yours truly, a P28A;
    • a C172, holding short of the runway on the ground, waiting to take off for another go in the pattern;
    • another P28A following me in the pattern but with sufficient separation as to not have been affected by my breaking off the approach and re-joining the downwind leg;
    • the straight-in aircraft, a C172 or C182 -- from the looks of it. He never identified type on the calls.
  • It is not my intention to get the other pilot in trouble, if indeed he cut in front of me (or myself, if I cut him off). I have the whole thing on video and I am only interested in learning what I could have done better/different in this situation.
Thank you for the very useful comments.
 
Witmo said:
What type aircraft did the straight in? With three aircraft in the pattern, I'm inclined to say the guy four miles north should have swung around to enter on a forty-five even if he was something like a corporate jet or King Air. Just me but I'll do a straight in only if I can sequence myself in without affecting aircraft already in the pattern.
Click to expand...
FTFY.
 
No you didn't "fix" anything. The reason I prefer large and/ or fast aircraft to do straight ins is to keep them from bolluxing up the pattern. Do you really want a Lear jet behind your P28 on downwind?
 
Witmo said:
No you didn't "fix" anything. The reason I prefer large and/ or fast aircraft to do straight ins is to keep them from bolluxing up the pattern. Do you really want a Lear jet behind your P28 on downwind?
Click to expand...
Been on both ends of that equation. A full pattern may not fit in, but if a straight-in obstructs traffic, something else needs to be done. Flying a turbine airplane relieves you from neither regulations nor common courtesy.
 
Last edited:
In that situation, the courteous thing for the the straight in aircraft to do is adjust to accommodate the traffic that is already in the pattern. Even better, I'd rather the straight in aircraft maneuver and enter on the 45, but I'm not a stickler. What the straight in aircraft shouldn't do is disrupt the traffic already in the pattern.

Flying a C-172 or a C-182, it isn't hard to speed up a little, slow down a little, or s-turn to create good spacing.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you heard someone calling “short approach” or any other terminology you didn’t understand, it would be your responsibility to clarify either their intent or that what you were doing wouldn’t conflict.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But that does not alter that point I was making in any way. Which is announcing 'bugsmasher 1234 on crosswind short approach' is about as clear as mud.
 
1.5 NM short final said:
...At the time I broke off my approach I was at about 400 AGL and I believe -- but I am not certain -- that I was the lowest flying aircraft, and closest to the runway.
Click to expand...

91.113(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." [Emphasis added]​
 
Palmpilot said:
91.113(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." [Emphasis added]​
Click to expand...

It basically spells it out right in the manual.
 
kyleb said:
In that situation, the courteous thing for the the straight in aircraft to do is adjust to accommodate the traffic that is already in the pattern. Even better, I'd rather the straight in aircraft maneuver and enter on the 45, but I'm not a stickler. What the straight in aircraft shouldn't do is disrupt the traffic already in the pattern.

Flying a C-172 or a C-182, it isn't hard to speed up a little, slow down a little, or s-turn to create good spacing.
Click to expand...

Wish I could Like this post more than once! Straight in to a full pattern is a bad practice.

I've shared the pattern at an uncontrolled field with a jet, coming in from a different direction. He beat me there and flew a continuous bank pattern, somewhat wide, and I watched his landing from downwind. He paused hus taxi to watch my landing. Caused no problems, grief or worry for either of us. We were the only ones there at the time.
 
weilke said:
It basically spells it out right in the manual.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't spell out what is "final." Is 1.5nm really "short final?" Sometimes when I'm too high or too fast or behind a slow plane, I'll EXTEND my downwind and fly a 1 mile long final . . . .
 
Hank S said:
But it doesn't spell out what is "final." Is 1.5nm really "short final?" Sometimes when I'm too high or too fast or behind a slow plane, I'll EXTEND my downwind and fly a 1 mile long final . . . .
Click to expand...

The reg doesn't say 'short final'. It says 'on final approach to land'. If he is far enough out that you can land in front of him without forcing him to alter his plans, you can sneak in. If you turning inside forces him to go around, you have to wait. No need to define the length of the final approach.
 
weilke said:
The reg doesn't say 'short final'. It says 'on final approach to land'. If he is far enough out that you can land in front of him without forcing him to alter his plans, you can sneak in. If you turning inside forces him to go around, you have to wait. No need to define the length of the final approach.
Click to expand...

With another bug smasher on 1.5nm "final," I've got time for a Stop-and-Go.
 
Contrarian time:

If you were doing a normal circuit instead of your power off 180 would the arriving straight in have caused an issue?

I'm not saying who's right or wrong, just throwin' a question.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
No doubt. But that does not alter that point I was making in any way. Which is announcing 'bugsmasher 1234 on crosswind short approach' is about as clear as mud.
Click to expand...
It's clear to a lot of people, but apparently not to everyone...but that doesn't alter my point, either...that it's the responsibility of the confused party to get clarification.
 
Ive been flying for 30 years and I would have no idea what a "short approach" call would mean on the downwind.

Every landing is a power off 180 landing unless something unusual happens.

Is the ops idea of a "short approach" a power off 180? If so, i still dont understand how this would be different from a normal landing?

The verbiage makes no sense to me.
 
Personally, I would not look to make a short approach or ANY downwind to base turn, until, in the downwind, I was sure it I was fitting into the flow of traffic. I think calling short approach on crosswind with an a/c on a long final makes no sense at all. I am not commenting on whether you could have safely landed in front of the final traffic.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
If you heard someone calling “short approach” or any other terminology you didn’t understand, it would be your responsibility to clarify either their intent or that what you were doing wouldn’t conflict.

Regardless of whether they said ATITAPA. ;)
Click to expand...
I hear things in the pattern all the time that I don't understand (non-standard terminology, people rambling, etc...I live near Canada, and they give 5 minute speeches on the CTAF)...I rarely ask for a clarification unless there ALSO seems to be a conflict.
And BTW, I've never heard "short approach" on the CTAF, and I wouldn't know what it means either.
 
I do occasionally hear 'short approach', but that's from the tower as in '07F can you give me a short approach?' Those are fun.
 
When I hear short approach, I think the final segment is less than a half mile.
Personally I find the statement short approach on crosswind confusing.
Back when I trained at KGAI, there were a couple of instructors that taught students to call on downwind, practice engine out approach. Then on base call the short final.
This always made sense to me. Non-standard but explicit.

Stating anything on crosswind except closed pattern, is premature.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
Yet another version of “when is straight in traffic in the pattern”. You were base, he called final. You turned back to downwind.

I am not sure why this is a question.
 
When the other pilot heard you use the term short approach after He advised a straight in final, He heard You were cutting your pattern short so you could cut in front instead of extending and following him.

At that point, He advised He was still on final and please expedite getting off the runway so He can land.
 
Walboy said:
That's nonsense. The OP said he announced his intention immediately after his touch-n-go, before the other airplane announced his position 4 miles to the north. With two airplanes in the pattern, the other airplane should have joined on a downwind from a 45 deg entry. I'm assuming the airplane 4 miles to the north wasn't practicing an instrument approach, but perhaps he was. The AIM says you're supposed to announce and monitor CTAF 10 miles out, AIM 4-1-9. If the pilot arriving from the north was doing was he was supposed to be doing, he would have had ample time to understand the situation and request clarification.

As I mentioned in my first post and others have subsequently noted, many pilots don't know what a short approach is. I think that was likely the source of misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed that there four airplanes total involved.
 
Walboy said:
That's nonsense. The OP said he announced his intention immediately after his touch-n-go, before the other airplane announced his position 4 miles to the north. With two airplanes in the pattern, the other airplane should have joined on a downwind from a 45 deg entry. I'm assuming the airplane 4 miles to the north wasn't practicing an instrument approach, but perhaps he was. The AIM says you're supposed to announce and monitor CTAF 10 miles out, AIM 4-1-9. If the pilot arriving from the north was doing was he was supposed to be doing, he would have had ample time to understand the situation and request clarification.

As I mentioned in my first post and others have subsequently noted, many pilots don't know what a short approach is. I think that was likely the source of misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

Ok what is a short approach? Does it mean the pilot is doing a simulated emergency and may be flying a a semi circular path from downwind to landing, flying a normal pattern that is closer to the airport, or not flying a full instrument procedure.

There is no standard definition other than “Make Short Approach”, which is an ATC instruction for controlled airports.
 
Why yes it is an airtank I'm holding... want to keep arguing?
18280.jpg
 
Walboy said:
I agree with the premise of your comment. There seems to have been confusion about the meaning of short approach. However, the OP was already in the pattern, the 4 mile plane was not. The burden it seems to me is for the airplane outside the pattern to understand the situation and ask for clarification.
Click to expand...

The goal is to accurately tell the other pilot where you are an what you are doing. If done properly, there is no need to ask questions.

It seems to me if I am going to start descending early on the downwind leg (an abnormal procedure) while onducting a simulated emergency approach, I would announce downwind runway# simulated emergency approach. That way everyone, including the aircraft holding on the surface, understand exactly what I am doing and don’t have to ask or make incorrect assumptions.

There nothing in the OPs version that suggests the straight in pilot was using an improper procedure (other than having a very liberal interpretation of the term short final) or should have yielded to the OP.
 
I'm surprised by how many people wouldn't understand the term short approach. I just assumed all pilots knew what it meant, but that's a good lesson learned for the next time I'm out practicing P/O 180's.
 
Somedudeintn said:
I'm surprised by how many people wouldn't understand the term short approach. I just assumed all pilots knew what it meant, but that's a good lesson learned for the next time I'm out practicing P/O 180's.
Click to expand...
Me too, I've had ATC ask me to make a short approach many times. Not sure why it becomes confusing when someone announces it on CTAF. I agree that announcing it on crosswind could be premature and maybe confusing.
 
Somedudeintn said:
I'm surprised by how many people wouldn't understand the term short approach. I just assumed all pilots knew what it meant, but that's a good lesson learned for the next time I'm out practicing P/O 180's.
Click to expand...

In some aircraft and wind conditions a PO 180
approach is an immediate turn from downwind direct to the runway. Which is not what one would expect from a short approach call.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top