My rebuttal besides the obvious of being uncontrolled airport would have been my request took less time than most garbled incoherent position reports. It wasn't a conversation. A quick concise request that let's the other guy know where you're at (while also letting him know he's stepping on you), gives him the option to slow down; do some s-turns if he says go ahead, and also gives you the option to extend downwind if he wants to be a dink.
Familiar story, turns base after straight in calls 3 mile final.
- Thread starter PaulS
- Start date
Flying Keys
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2021
- Messages
- 577
- Display Name
Display name:
Flying Keys
McClellan is a different ballgame - it’s busy, complex, airspace with helicopters everywhere, fire attack (including VLAT) in the summer thru fall, air ambulance, training, jets, Coast Guard, etc. It sits under the outer edge of the KSMF class charlie, has an ILS approach, L36 is 2 miles W, and as I said earlier, KMHR and KSAC within 10nm as well. It’s not your typical uncontrolled field on the outskirts of town. It should be towered and I’m surprised it’s not, probably only because it’s on the lower end of the traffic scale. But based on current numbers, it’d be ranked about 375/525 of towered fields in the US.
Being uncontrolled it's the responsibility of everyone else to communicate.
In my scenario, let's assume Cirrus didn't hear where centurian entered downwind as he very well may not have.
Cirrus after hearing my request... "Where are you on downwind?" To which one could say Midfield, abeam, or turning base shortly. Now, if I was the Cirrus driver and having heard that request, one could probably assume that the centurian probably wouldn't make the call if he had just turned from crosswind. "Abeam the numbers, will keep it tight"
Without atc, it's up to BOTH pilots to work it out. Instead without communicating, both pilots feel like they were stepped on. One feels he has the right of way as he was in the pattern (and probably did). The other feels like he was turned in front of (and probably was).
Eric Brunelle
Pre-takeoff checklist
Exactly - why not just talk to each other?
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Why do you say he's OUT OF THE PATTERN? If you extend your downwind to follow another aircraft in the pattern you're still in the pattern. What about all those aircraft that are sequenced in at Oshkosh? Do they exceed some unspecified distance from the airport and then lose their status as approaching to land with all of the other aircraft? Of course not. The pattern is ill-defined and changes as circumstances change. If you disagree with that, please show me the reference that clarifies it.
"Last call."
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
It's always worth a try. But some pilots are virtually incapable of communicating effectively, and a few others are not even on the same frequency, even when they think they are. Some are NORDO. Occasionally, one is in a true emergency and communication is the last thing on his mind. These ROW rules have been in effect for a long time, and still need to be respected. I looked through one of my training books from 1974. What is now 91.113 was then 91.67, but the text was exactly the same almost 50 years ago, and maybe considerably longer than that.
Ironically, a significant number of mid air collisions occur at towered fields, where not only is everyone in communication with each other, but you have a controller, well "controlling" things.
well yes...but at some point that downwind becomes a cross county...with the return being a long straight in final entry.
Which from what I can tell would have been the result. Jason said they were in the parking spot before the cirrus turned off the runway. If I were to guess, that could be an exaggeration for dramatic affect... meaning they were on the ramp.... but still. If either were true it would probably be fitting into that cross country territory....
Airventure being a special case of course...but that long string you mention....wouldn't that be more of an arrival than a pattern?
I don't know....that's getting into semantics....probably an oversimplification but when I think of a traffic pattern I picture the little rectangle in the immediate runway environment... the one depicted in all the books.
As I was typing this I decided to go looking to refresh my rusty pilot self on what the FAA says about the "size" of the pattern
I landed here. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...iation/airplane_handbook/media/09_afh_ch7.pdf
as a side note...noticed this little quote....
probably better in that other thread about literally reading the rules...but anyway
"When well clear of the pattern—approximately 2 miles—scan carefully for traffic"
I don't know I just thought that was a fun tidbit.... SO, 2 miles is considered "well clear of the pattern". Hmm....interesting....so
- first thing...just skimming this little nugget of a document, I see no mention of the long final straight in approach as even being part of a pattern
- it says "Entries into traffic patterns while descending create specific collision hazards and should always be avoided."
- about the downwind, "This leg is flown approximately 1/2 to 1 mile out from the landing runway and at the specified traffic pattern altitude."
- "The pilot should continue the downwind leg past a point abeam the approach end of the runway to a point approximately 45° from the approach end of the runway, and make a medium bank turn onto the base leg." So if the downwind is 1/2 to 1 mile offset from the runway, and the 90° turn to base happens at the 45° point, then that means the base leg intersects final at 1/2 to 1 mile from the runway
in a way...I kinda think it does...so for a plane entering the pattern on final...they are not actually IN the PATTERN till they are 1/2 to 1 mile from the runway threshold.
and if I extend this logic a bit
based on the 1/2 to 1 mile offset.... the furthest from the runway a plane in the pattern should absolutely ever be, is at the 45° point turning from downwind to base (and crosswind to downwind)....which would be what.... 0.7 miles to 1.4 miles max from the runway. So at no point ever should a plane in the pattern be further than 1.4 miles from the runway.
I know this is theoretical....perhaps overly simplified...etc.... but I still find this very interesting and applicable to this discussion!
It doesn't pay to be rigid about these things. If traffic conditions require adjusting the size of your pattern from what a textbook says, it's better than being dead.
dtuuri
Final Approach
It's even more interesting to read the definition of a traffic pattern here FAR157.2: eCFR :: 14 CFR Part 157 -- Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports
Wouldn't that be the definition of in the "vicinity" of an airport while approaching to land, all turns to the left and so on and so forth?
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Please, "...straight in Cirrus" is not a complaint? At his first call an adversarial relationship was created. He's not "right" but it was evident from the video that that base and final turn was cranked in close to the airport in order to sneak in ahead. The consensus has been well established, there's even a Paul B video about it, that straight ins are not illegal, and should it happen the downwind traffic is safest to extend. This became more about ego and who's right
The glide range argument is grasping at straws. If you have such little faith in your engine that it can't fly an extra 2 minutes without risk of catastrophic failure there are other issues going on
That's missing the point.
That seems like a reasonable enough definition, but with the scope of 157.2 being set by its first sentence, I would be hesitant to cite it for purposes other than Part 157.
"For the purpose of this part:"
dtuuri
Final Approach
The other five definitions are no good for anything else either?
agreed reasonable definition..... (for the purposes of this part...ie construction, etc...)
but it's not the only definition. No doubt there are many scattered among all the FAA publications
and also agree with palmpilot...not trying to be rigid. There is some wisdom in looking at definitions and such, to gain better understanding.
That does define a 5 mile radius which is an interesting addition to the puzzle...but doesn't really define any of the segments, etc. It doesn't really change anything I pulled from that airplane handbook earlier, though.
but it's not the only definition. No doubt there are many scattered among all the FAA publications
and also agree with palmpilot...not trying to be rigid. There is some wisdom in looking at definitions and such, to gain better understanding.
That does define a 5 mile radius which is an interesting addition to the puzzle...but doesn't really define any of the segments, etc. It doesn't really change anything I pulled from that airplane handbook earlier, though.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Good find. That stacks up pretty well against some of the other vague perceptions of the "pattern".
Frankly, I'd welcome an FAA action to define "the vicinity of the airport" to be five nautical miles, or some number close to that. Even at 120 knots, an aircraft on final has 2 1/2 minutes from entering that space before arriving at the airport.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
I don't see any wisdom in defining the segments, because there will always be good reasons for them to be adaptive. But I think there is wisdom in defining the airspace in which the rules are strictly applicable.
Not to be snarky, but the Pilot's Handbook is a simplified version of "how to fly" and shouldn't be construed as the only way to operate in any given situation.
I'm not passing judgment on whether they are good or not; I'm just saying that I'm not sure they can be considered to be legally binding outside of their stated area of applicability.
I would also point out that defining "the pattern" and "the vicinity of an airport" is not relevant to the right-of-way argument, because the right-of-way regulation does not use those terms.
perhaps...and god point. I'm going to have to go look that up as a refresher when I get more time later.....
but doesn't it reference yielding to planes on the final pattern leg?
...so where does cross country end and the "final" leg of the pattern begin?
....or where does the instrument approach end and meet the final leg of the pattern
it's all sort of semantics, theoretical, or whatever... but fundamentals matter.
but doesn't it reference yielding to planes on the final pattern leg?
...so where does cross country end and the "final" leg of the pattern begin?
....or where does the instrument approach end and meet the final leg of the pattern
it's all sort of semantics, theoretical, or whatever... but fundamentals matter.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
I don't think it matters. If you assume that an aircraft on final approach 30 or 60 miles away has the ROW, all you have to do is remain well clear. In that scenario the pattern could operate normally for the next 15 minutes or half an hour before anyone in the pattern had to do anything different to remain well clear. I think the regulation is a good one as is (and has been unchanged for 50 years or more), but I would like to see something done to prevent abuse of the straight in privilege.
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Abuse of straight in "privilege"? Hmmmm, I don't think I've ever seen the straight in abused IRL. I don't think it was abused here, to the contrary I think the guy flying the pattern was less than courteous. You are going to have to explain this one for me.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Theoretically, anyone can fly straight in on final, including a NORDO Cub, and when that plane gets close enough, everyone already there has to remain well clear, which means extending the pattern or exiting the pattern and re-entering. There's a place for straight in approaches, but if all of the aircraft approaching into the wind and the favored runway elected to fly straight in you'd have aircraft of vastly different approach speeds trying to sort themselves out in a long line of arriving aircraft, and then all of the aircraft approaching from other directions would have a hard time even getting into a position to land. It would be chaotic and dangerous.
So we have a system that depends on people being considerate and following the recommendations of various advisories, all while a regulation clearly states the aircraft on final has the ROW. There's a point where that gets ridiculous if you have enough pilots who are rude enough to abuse the "privilege" of entering straight in, and it happens frequently. The straight in approach is appropriate when it doesn't interfere with existing traffic approaching to land or when aircraft have such a high approach speed that entering a wider pattern than everyone else is potentially even more chaotic, particularly when there are more than one of them.
I agree completely that in the case we're discussing here the guy flying in the pattern was displaying horribly poor airmanship by cutting in front of the aircraft on final. Worse yet he apparently thought he was doing it because he had the ROW, which he didn't. If he did that on a regular basis, he should end up like Fekete. The guy on final was being accommodating and courteous in dealing with a buffoon cutting him off, IMHO, so I think we agree on that.
so....it all comes down to each pilot's definition of "close enough" and "well clear"?
C-1 PILOT
Pre-takeoff checklist
Had the same scenario happen to me a month ago, also by a Cirrus straight in. I advised the Cirrus that I’d extend and he was appreciative, as he was about to terminate his landing and go around. I was more pi**ed yesterday when a 172 landed, rolled out and sat short of leaving the runway with no announcement. Another Cessna on frequency turned final. I could have departed, but held and waited for Cessna #2 to land, but not before calling to Cessna #1, to ask his intentions. He apologized of course.
My gripe, had it been quiet I could see #1 taking his sweet time, but the CTAF was busy and more attention should have been paid, just my 2 cents.
My gripe, had it been quiet I could see #1 taking his sweet time, but the CTAF was busy and more attention should have been paid, just my 2 cents.