Do they teach correct patterns any more?

JC150 said:
Plenty of times in the Airbus when we go to an uncontrolled field, if its a visual approach and i need a right turn to final, thats what I do. I like to join the final approach course and wings level right at 1,000 feet. Gives me roughly a 3 mile final. Truth is, i don't really care about traffic pattern directions. Its a visual approach.
Click to expand...
A 737 was violated for that some years ago and lost the appeal. IIRC, he turned final about 5 miles out but neither the FAA, nor the appeals judge, accepted his contention that it was a straight-in. They said that the distance needed for a "straight-in" was dependent on the airplane.

I don't don't have time to dig it up at the moment. I will later if nobody else does first.
 
That's interesting. We have to abide by our Ops Specs, and we are required to be on a straight in by 1,000 feet agl, unless its a charted visual such as the river visual, expressway visual, etc.
 
Alaska airlines and at least one of them was 3.1 miles. If you are interested, that should help the googles find it for you.
 
Larry in TN said:
A 737 was violated for that some years ago and lost the appeal. IIRC, he turned final about 5 miles out but neither the FAA, nor the appeals judge, accepted his contention that it was a straight-in. They said that the distance needed for a "straight-in" was dependent on the airplane.

I don't don't have time to dig it up at the moment. I will later if nobody else does first.
Click to expand...
Boardman was one of them.
 
JC150 said:
That's interesting. We have to abide by our Ops Specs, and we are required to be on a straight in by 1,000 feet agl, unless its a charted visual such as the river visual, expressway visual, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're saying. An Ops Spec does not give anyone carte blanche to violate a FAA regulation so if you're saying that a descent to 1000 ft requires you to do whatever it takes to be on a straight-in, even if it means turning right onto final when its a left pattern, you're wrong. You either join final further out or you stay above 1000 ft and maneuver to make a left turn onto final. Being IFR doesn't mean bumpkis when there's aircraft flying the proper VFR traffic pattern. IFR traffic is expected to integrate into the VFR pattern whether that means a straight-in if spacing permits or maneuvering around the pattern to enter on a downwind. If I'm in the pattern, I'll try to accommodate my pattern to the plane flying the approach but that's just me being polite.
 
Witmo said:
I'm not sure what you're saying. An Ops Spec does not give anyone carte blanche to violate a FAA regulation so if you're saying that a descent to 1000 ft requires you to do whatever it takes to be on a straight-in, even if it means turning right onto final when its a left pattern, you're wrong. You either join final further out or you stay above 1000 ft and maneuver to make a left turn onto final. Being IFR doesn't mean bumpkis when there's aircraft flying the proper VFR traffic pattern. IFR traffic is expected to integrate into the VFR pattern whether that means a straight-in if spacing permits or maneuvering around the pattern to enter on a downwind. If I'm in the pattern, I'll try to accommodate my pattern to the plane flying the approach but that's just me being polite.
Click to expand...

You’re incorrect. Ops specs always overrules everything. It’s the reason we and other carriers are allowed to take off below standard takeoff minimums, fly through P-56 during windshear, etc. Ops specs is what we fly by

I’m sorry but if I’m flying the A321 into an uncontrolled field because the tower is closed, im not going to integrate myself Into a traffic pattern. I’m going to get cleared for whatever approach and fly straight in. Even if it means a right turn to final
 
JC150 said:
You’re incorrect. Ops specs always overrules everything. It’s the reason we and other carriers are allowed to take off below standard takeoff minimums, fly through P-56 during windshear, etc. Ops specs is what we fly by

I’m sorry but if I’m flying the A321 into an uncontrolled field because the tower is closed, im not going to integrate myself Into a traffic pattern. I’m going to get cleared for whatever approach and fly straight in. Even if it means a right turn to final
Click to expand...

Just curious, are circling approaches limited to greater than 1000/3 by your Ops Specs?
 
JC150 said:
You’re incorrect. Ops specs always overrules everything. It’s the reason we and other carriers are allowed to take off below standard takeoff minimums, fly through P-56 during windshear, etc. Ops specs is what we fly by
Click to expand...
No, Op Specs authorize deviations from the specific regs from which they’re authorizing deviations. Not “everything”.
 
Last edited:
Follow the ops specs, and you won’t get in trouble. What I’m referring to is what the user above posted saying I need to make a left turn and integrate into the pattern. Nope. If im cleared for an approach, and it happens to be a right turn to final, so be it. Remember a visual is considered an instrument approach.

User above is correct. I may not know the wording for every reg out there. But I know every ops spec we have and what they entail. Ops specs are gospel at my carrier
 
Last edited:
I don't see how turning to fly a 5-mile straight in could be considered being in the traffic pattern. It shouldn't matter whether you are intercepting from the left or right side of the course.
 
I'm struggling to see how an mainline airliner would fit into a conventional DBF pattern if there are other aircraft already there. If I was in that pattern, I'd much rather have the Airbus/Boeing whatever fly a straight-in and work around it by extending or doing a short approach.

If said airliner makes a right turn 5 miles out from a field with left traffic, who cares?
 
JC150 said:
Follow the ops specs, and you won’t get in trouble. What I’m referring to is what the user above posted saying I need to make a left turn and integrate into the pattern. Nope. If im cleared for an approach, and it happens to be a right turn to final, so be it. Remember a visual is considered an instrument approach.

User above is correct. I may not know the wording for every reg out there. But I know every ops spec we have and what they entail. Ops specs are gospel at my carrier
Click to expand...

and it’s attitudes like this that I love to shut down... Me and a Student in the pattern working on landings at a non-controller field, beginning left base for a touch and go, a airbus makes his very first call to CTAF as a 3 mile final for the same runway... Nope, sorry dipweed, you’re going around
 
Skymac said:
and it’s attitudes like this that I love to shut down... Me and a Student in the pattern working on landings at a non-controller field, beginning left base for a touch and go, a airbus makes his very first call to CTAF as a 3 mile final for the same runway... Nope, sorry dipweed, you’re going around
Click to expand...

Paid by the minute, fine with me.
 
What internet research I've been able to do in the last 15 minutes indicates that clearance for a visual approach does not in and of itself obviate a pilot from complying with the published traffic pattern direction of turns. Unless an Ops Spec specifically allows an air carrier to deviate from a regulation, they can't legally deviate from a regulation. An Ops Spec stating a carrier must be on a straight-in by 1000 feet agl does not mean they can do whatever the hell they want to turn onto final. It means they had better maneuver outside the traffic pattern above 1000 feet agl so that by the time they have descended to 1000 feet they are on final. I'd hazard a guess that the pilots flying the transport category aircraft that were violated for turning onto final within the traffic pattern from the wrong side also had Ops Spec similar to one referenced by JC150 and they got violated.
 
The last place I want to be is in a pattern with an A321 flying above me or near me for that matter. Make your announcements, I'll get out of your way.
 
Skymac said:
and it’s attitudes like this that I love to shut down... Me and a Student in the pattern working on landings at a non-controller field, beginning left base for a touch and go, a airbus makes his very first call to CTAF as a 3 mile final for the same runway... Nope, sorry dipweed, you’re going around
Click to expand...
Richard Fekete was subjected to emergency revocation of his pilot certificate for doing what you say you would do.

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/4236.pdf
 
In his case yes, but I’m already on base, setup, lower, and inside of the segment. We can beat this horse until it’s dead but don’t expect to gain any friends by doing such ****. I’ve seen the same out of operations totally not even calling CTAF and blowing in. Obviously it’s not everyone and I fly about anything but it’s silly stuff like that which makes everyone look bad. It’s like do we forget how to fly when we get on an airline class aircraft.
 
Last edited:
The original poster said

To all of you who think it's ok to use whatever pattern you want, it is ILLEGAL. "Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right..."

My traffic pattern in the bus is more than a 3 mile final. We have to be established on the final approach course, wings level, and stabilized by 1,000 feet agl. All I'm saying is if ATC clears me for the visual and it happens to be a right turn to final 5 miles out, so be it. But I'm not going to fly my A321 overhead to cross over the airport just so I can make left hand turns.
 
and none of those airlines patterns, now... keep it nice and tight to the airfield in case of an engine out.
 
Palmpilot said:
Boardman was one of them.
Click to expand...
That’s an absurd ruling based on what’s I can see from the link. Did they ever clarify what constitutes a straight in besides a 30°cone? What type of maneuver do they expect from an airliner approaching from the right?
 
I can tell you recently, I flew the RON flight to an outstation in the bus. Tower was closed, night time, lots of convective activity where the left downwind would be. We were cleared direct to the FAF (basically a right base) and cleared for the visual which was a straight in. So let me ask all of you. Are you telling me I should fly at 1,500 feet (Turbine TPA), fly over the airfield, then join a left downwind where all the heavy rain was?

In my opinion not only is this ridiculous but it wastes a lot of gas which they short us on constantly. So I'm going to make that right base and go straight in.
 
No you go straight. That’s not in question? Just do what’s safe, and make the calls. No one will safe anything against that. It’s when someone blasts in and acts like they are the only show, that’s the big deal.
 
JC150 said:
That's interesting. We have to abide by our Ops Specs, and we are required to be on a straight in by 1,000 feet agl, unless its a charted visual such as the river visual, expressway visual, etc.
Click to expand...
A visual approach clearance does not relive you of your responsibility to comply with 91.126 through 91.131.

There is nothing in your (or my) OpSpecs that authorizes any deviations from the direction of turn requirements of 91.126 through 91.131.

You (and I) must comply with both 91.126 through 91.131 and our OpSpecs.

Nothing about joining final at no lower than 1,000' AFL conflicts with, or overrides, 91.126 - 91.131. Nothing about that affects how you get to being on final at, or above, 1,000' AFL.

The Boardman violation, and subsequent NTSB decision, shows that when conducting a visual approach we must still comply with the direction of turn requirements of 91.126 - 91.131 and establishes that a straight-in approach, which is allowed by 91.126 - 91.131, must begin outside of the normal traffic pattern for the airplane in question. If your last turn to final is not in compliance with 91.126 - 91.131 then it must be made outside of what would be a normal pattern for your airplane. Since you are required to be on final no later than 1,000' AFL you would have to make that final turn sufficiently outside that point to demonstrate that you are outside of the pattern.

What I do, if my last turn is not IAW 91.126 - 91.131, is make my turn outside of the applicable final-approach-fix for the runway so that I am established on Final by the FAF. In the unlikely event that an inspector questions my actions I can point out that I was established on final prior to the applicable FAF and was performing a straight-in approach.
 
JC150 said:
I can tell you recently, I flew the RON flight to an outstation in the bus. Tower was closed, night time, lots of convective activity where the left downwind would be. We were cleared direct to the FAF (basically a right base) and cleared for the visual which was a straight in. So let me ask all of you. Are you telling me I should fly at 1,500 feet (Turbine TPA), fly over the airfield, then join a left downwind where all the heavy rain was?

In my opinion not only is this ridiculous but it wastes a lot of gas which they short us on constantly. So I'm going to make that right base and go straight in.
Click to expand...

Just be on that freakin' CTAF radio, hopefully well before you get to the FAF, and let people know you are coming.
 
I’ll admit I’ve never heard of this and I have learned a lot from the POA community. This is not the standard practice I’ve witnessed and this is the first I’ve heard of an airline pilot being violated for right turns going to an unctrolled airport. So thank you for educating me
 
Larry in TN said:
...a straight-in approach, which is allowed by 91.126 - 91.131, must begin outside of the normal traffic pattern for the airplane in question.
Click to expand...
IIRC, it isn't the "airplane in question" it's the traffic pattern that could be expected by any other aircraft that utilizes the "airport in question". A Cherokee, for example, can't turn right to final at, say, one mile while a B737 is on a left base at five miles.
 
JC150 said:
I can tell you recently, I flew the RON flight to an outstation in the bus. Tower was closed, night time, lots of convective activity where the left downwind would be. We were cleared direct to the FAF (basically a right base) and cleared for the visual which was a straight in. So let me ask all of you. Are you telling me I should fly at 1,500 feet (Turbine TPA), fly over the airfield, then join a left downwind where all the heavy rain was?

In my opinion not only is this ridiculous but it wastes a lot of gas which they short us on constantly. So I'm going to make that right base and go straight in.
Click to expand...

JC150 said:
I’ll admit I’ve never heard of this and I have learned a lot from the POA community. This is not the standard practice I’ve witnessed and this is the first I’ve heard of an airline pilot being violated for right turns going to an unctrolled airport. So thank you for educating me
Click to expand...

Which airport and approach are we talking about? I suspect the FAF is some distance beyond 3 miles which would indeed allow you to align for a straight in while outside the traffic pattern. A circling approach opens a different can or worms re. all turns to the left unless otherwise stated because at that point you're in the pattern-there have been discussions on POA about that issue. As far as being shorted on gas, it's within the captain's authority to add fuel beyond what the dispatcher calls for based on local knowledge/conditions, even if it does "waste a lot of gas" so that is not an issue. Safety is more important than profit, hence the referenced violation. Had they flown to a FAF for a straight-in then turned no action would probably have been taken.
 
dmspilot said:
Not just in front of another aircraft on final but the other aircraft was lower. o_O So he unambiguously did NOT have the right of way.
Click to expand...
If Fekete had been lower than the aircraft that were making straight-ins, he still would not have had the right-of-way, because the last sentence of 91.113(g) clearly prohibits using the lower-altitude rule as a justification for cutting in front of an aircraft on final.

"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."​

The FAA doesn't specifically define "cut in front" as far as I know, but I can't think of any reasonable argument that forcing an aircraft on final to take evasive action would not constitute cutting in front of it in the FAA's and NTSB's eyes, and I choose not to risk my certificate or my life on such an assumption.

At the same time, when I make straight-ins, I don't assume that traffic in the pattern will yield to me, because the FAA has created confusion in some of their published guidance. The only safe policy, IMO, is to not assume that others will yield the right-of-way to me, no matter where I am.
 
Cooter said:
That’s an absurd ruling based on what’s I can see from the link. Did they ever clarify what constitutes a straight in besides a 30°cone? What type of maneuver do they expect from an airliner approaching from the right?
Click to expand...
Beats the heck out of me. :dunno:
 
I'm going to put some kind of filter on these posts to hide anything containing the words "left turn."

The interpretations of what a traffic pattern is that I have heard here are ridiculous.

That probably explains how people are getting away with this entry from inside the pattern BS.

Constructive suggestion: Let's petition the FAA to rethink traffic patterns and simplify the regulations and AIM to avoid such ambiguous interpretations...
 
IK04 said:
That probably explains how people are getting away with this entry from inside the pattern BS.
Click to expand...
It doesn't help that the FAA has officially given its blessing to it in the latest AC on traffic patterns.
 
Aren’t most FAF’s well outside the normal traffic pattern. When cleared to the FAF it doesn’t matter which way you turn at that point. Right?
 
1RTK1 said:
Aren’t most FAF’s well outside the normal traffic pattern. When cleared to the FAF it doesn’t matter which way you turn at that point. Right?
Click to expand...
If you're IFR, I don't think they're supposed to clear you direct to the FAF unless it is co-located with an IAF, in which case you have to fly the course reversal depicted.
 
Palmpilot said:
If Fekete had been lower
Click to expand...

But my point was that he wasn't. He doesn't even have a defense. You can any one of the right of way rules and he's wrong each time.
 
Palmpilot said:
If you're IFR, I don't think they're supposed to clear you direct to the FAF unless it is co-located with an IAF, in which case you have to fly the course reversal depicted.
Click to expand...

We get cleared to the FAF all the time. That’s pretty normal when expecting the visual.
 
1RTK1 said:
Aren’t most FAF’s well outside the normal traffic pattern. When cleared to the FAF it doesn’t matter which way you turn at that point. Right?
Click to expand...

Don't try to inject logical thought into this conversation. Come back when you're not sober...
 
Cooter said:
We get cleared to the FAF all the time. That’s pretty normal when expecting the visual.
Click to expand...
I was talking about when you're flying a published instrument approach (other than a published visual approach).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top