I think I did the allowed thing....

[Doug F]

But maybe not the smart thing.

Un-towered airport. Flying a Skycatcher.
I'm doing run up on 23.
Citation calls straight in for 05, 10 miles out about the time I finish and get ready to take off.
I'm thinking, he's out and not in the pattern, 10 miles...I should be able to take off, turn left early, and leave him room to land without getting sporty.
So I call that I'm departing 5 for closed pattern.
As I hit the throttle, the Citation calls 8 miles and switching to a right entry for runway 05.
I take off, turn left, and am about mid-field when I see the Citation abeam me on the right pattern.
He turns and lands ahead of me.

As I understand, straight in approaches are not in the pattern and have no priority for landing so I was technically within my rights to take off.
Upon reflection, I'm thinking the better thing to do would have been to contact the Citation, offer to hold short, and just wait for him to get in.

Your thoughts?

 

[Tantalum]

Upon reflection, I'm thinking the better thing to do would have been to contact the Citation, offer to hold short, and just wait for him to get in.

Yeah... that's the most pragmatic thing to do. Midairs and untowered airports freak me out... no sense in "squeezing it out" before him, especially if you can wait 3 minutes and take off with less pressure. Should anything go wrong on your end, like an engine issue on takeoff, need to abort, etc., you're creating a potentially more hazardous situation for you and the Citation. This could be a slippery slope, but let's say you go to full power, then abort around 40-50 knots, and the Citation doesn't see you because he's in the flare... and boom. Unlikely, but most accidents are caused by something "unlikely" happening as a result of a chain of events

Anyway, that's how we learn, safe flying and thanks for the post!!

 

[Tantalum]

^^or you take off just fine, but you're climbing out at "SkyCatcher" pace, and he has to go around for whatever reason, now you you have a jet doing 120+ knots and climbing looking for a tiny white plane somewhere in the pattern. Again, unlikely, but even though you had a fair amount of distance (10 miles) you do increase an opportunity for something to go belly up

 

[Challenged]

I would have talked to them. More than once I've had a landing plane tell me that I could go ahead and depart when we were both comfortable with the spacing available.

 

[Doug F]

Tantalum, thanks. It was one of those things that hit me about the time he called 8 miles, right pattern for 5. At that point I realized I caused him to change his plan. It all worked out and I didn't detect any frustration on the radio.

It was an overall odd day. Wind favored 29 and a couple of planes were using it. I wanted to practice cross-wind landings so used 23 along with a 172 and there were a couple of planes doing ILS on 05...What...nobody using 11??? Luckily, everybody was pretty spaced out so we didn't have people in the pattern for 5, 23, and 29 at the same time.

 

[Doug F]

I would have talked to them. More than once I've had a landing plane tell me that I could go ahead and depart when we were both comfortable with the spacing available.

Yeah. I am doing that more often and just didn't this time. I've had spotty results with people responding which is kind of frustrating but, hey, we don't really need to even have radios, right?
The other thing I'm still learning is aircraft speeds. 10 miles out for a Skycatcher is way different than 10 for a Citation and I just don't know typical aircraft speeds yet.

 

[Tantalum]

It was an overall odd day. Wind favored 29 and a couple of planes were using it. I wanted to practice cross-wind landings so used 23 along with a 172 and there were a couple of planes doing ILS on 05...What...nobody using 11??? Luckily, everybody was pretty spaced out so we didn't have people in the pattern for 5, 23, and 29 at the same time.

haha don't you love when that happens! Especially when you have people practicing an instrument approach and announce their position as something vague like "white skyhawk November 1234 Bravo Sierra on the VOR ALPHA low approach then going missed" - I guarantee most 20-30 hr solo PPL candidates in the pattern have no clue what any of that means

Anyway, like I said, that's how we learn. Cheers

 

[RyanB]

But maybe not the smart thing.

Un-towered airport. Flying a Skycatcher.
I'm doing run up on 23.
Citation calls straight in for 05, 10 miles out about the time I finish and get ready to take off.
I'm thinking, he's out and not in the pattern, 10 miles...I should be able to take off, turn left early, and leave him room to land without getting sporty.
So I call that I'm departing 5 for closed pattern.
As I hit the throttle, the Citation calls 8 miles and switching to a right entry for runway 05.
I take off, turn left, and am about mid-field when I see the Citation abeam me on the right pattern.
He turns and lands ahead of me.

As I understand, straight in approaches are not in the pattern and have no priority for landing so I was technically within my rights to take off.
Upon reflection, I'm thinking the better thing to do would have been to contact the Citation, offer to hold short, and just wait for him to get in.

Your thoughts?

So you did your run-up by 23 but then taxiied back to 5 for takeoff? That was the right move. If the citation is 10 miles out, I don’t see a problem with commencing the takeoff, just use good SA.

Forget what you’ve learned about straight in approaches not having priority, that’s nonsense. The aircraft on final ALWAYS has the right of way.

 

[SkyDog58]

Yeah. I am doing that more often and just didn't this time. I've had spotty results with people responding which is kind of frustrating but, hey, we don't really need to even have radios, right?
The other thing I'm still learning is aircraft speeds. 10 miles out for a Skycatcher is way different than 10 for a Citation and I just don't know typical aircraft speeds yet.

The SWAG that I use for jets is 4 nautical miles per minute which is 240 knots which is just under the 250 limit under 10K. So if he called 10 miles out, he’d be there in 2.5 minutes or a bit longer as he’ll be slowing down to landing speed. It’s just an estimate but 2.5 minutes is plenty of time to take the runway and depart even for a Skycatcher. Just use your best judgment and if you aren’t comfortable with going, don’t go.

 

[OverTQ]

Forget what you’ve learned about straight in approaches not having priority, that’s nonsense. The aircraft on final ALWAYS has the right of way.

Is it really "final" if he's outside, and likely well above, the pattern?

AFAIK, "final" is a segment of the traffic pattern. If an airplane on base gets to "final" first, they would have right-of-way over someone on a straight-in that's hasn't yet reached the perimeter of the traffic pattern.

 

[RyanB]

Is it really "final" if he's outside, and likely well above, the pattern?

AFAIK, "final" is a segment of the traffic pattern. If an airplane on base gets to "final" first, they would have right-of-way over someone on a straight-in that's hasn't yet reached the perimeter of the traffic pattern.

For turbojet aircraft, final is final as far as I’m concerned. I consider a 10 mile final in a jet to be the equivalent of about a 2-3 mile final for a light single, so you have to take that into consideration.

Now because he was outside of the traffic pattern, I don’t see a problem with commencing the takeoff as there was plenty of time to do so, you just need to be aware of your surroundings.

 

[bobmrg]

But maybe not the smart thing.

Un-towered airport. Flying a Skycatcher.
I'm doing run up on 23.
Citation calls straight in for 05, 10 miles out about the time I finish and get ready to take off.
I'm thinking, he's out and not in the pattern, 10 miles...I should be able to take off, turn left early, and leave him room to land without getting sporty.
So I call that I'm departing 5 for closed pattern.
As I hit the throttle, the Citation calls 8 miles and switching to a right entry for runway 05.
I take off, turn left, and am about mid-field when I see the Citation abeam me on the right pattern.
He turns and lands ahead of me.

As I understand, straight in approaches are not in the pattern and have no priority for landing so I was technically within my rights to take off.
Upon reflection, I'm thinking the better thing to do would have been to contact the Citation, offer to hold short, and just wait for him to get in.

Your thoughts?

A rule that has served me well: When in doubt, don't.

Bob

 

[Hank S]

For turbojet aircraft, final is final as far as I’m concerned. I consider a 10 mile final in a jet to be the equivalent of about a 2-3 mile final for a light single, so you have to take that into consideration.

Now because he was outside of the traffic pattern, I don’t see a problem with commencing the takeoff as there was plenty of time to do so, you just need to be aware of your surroundings.

I don't consider 10 miles for a Citation or 2-3 miles for a light single to be "on final" as "in the pattern." Just coordinate on the radio, it's not hard. And like Bob said, if you're still in doubt, then don't go, just wait a couple of minutes.

 

[OverTQ]

I consider a 10 mile final in a jet to be the equivalent of about a 2-3 mile final for a light single, so you have to take that into consideration.

Unless you're the Administrator, I don't think I do!
----
For the record, a five mile "final" leg is plenty for most jets that going to be mixing with prop traffic at a non-towered airport.
---
Let's do a thought experiment:

It's clear and a million. A jet is on downwind, and has begun their descent from the turbojet pattern altitude. There are still two turns to make (to base, and to final) but vertically, it's a constant glide path to the runway. The airplane is configured for landing and stabilized on the glide path as specified by the profiles for that airplane. About the time the jet needs to turn base in order to maintain that stable glide path, a Cessna 182 announces that he's on a four mile straight-in. It's clear there will not be enough separation. Who has the right-of-way?

(A) The 182 that is four miles away on a straight-in has the right-of-way. (The jet should break off the descent, reconfigure, climb back up to pattern altitude, and extend the downwind to sequence behind the 182.)

(B) The jet that is in the pattern, already configured and descending on-profile for landing, has the right-of-way? (The 182 should work around the jet.)

If you're consistent in your view that an airplane planning on a straight-in should be considered "final" traffic, and be given right-of-way, you'd have chose (A), the 182.

If you answered (B), the jet, then it sounds like you're actually just biased towards jets when it comes to determining right-of-way, since you've given the jet the right-of-way in both this example, where it's in the pattern, and in the OP's example, where it's the straight-in traffic.
---
This is why I believe that, in the OPs example, it was acceptable to expect the jet to yield. I believe the only interpretation that is both consistent and in agreement with the spirit of the rules, is that no plane has the right-of-way until it's within it's traffic pattern, and there is no exception based on the type of powerplant the airplane is equipped with.

That being said, I almost always give way to jets. I'm not saying people shouldn't yield to a straight-in jet, I'm just pointing out that they I don't think they have to unless that jet truly is "on final".

 

[bflynn]

A Citation that is 10 miles out is going to arrive in just over 3 minutes at an approach speed of 180 kts. By the time you drove from your run up to get onto the runway, he was probably close enough to be final, especially if he was midfield before you were. Quite possible that he wasn't calling distances correctly. When you go a mile in 20 seconds, you can look down at the readout, key the mike and by the time you say "8 miles out", you're not anymore.

Simple fact, you misjudged the speed of an arriving aircraft. Did you cut them off? Maybe, maybe not. Probably because they side stepped around you. I'm guessing just over 2 minutes from his "8 miles out call" to him passing you in the pattern and just about a minute from that call to him be "officially" on final. What did you do for 2 minutes? A Skycatcher isn't that slow.

Legal / not smart? Sure. It was probably a little on the discourteous side. If you're going to squeeze your takoff in before someone lands, do it expediently. Keep in mind that if you're taking off and a faster aircraft has to go around, then you're both going to dangerously try to fly in the same space and you will be under their nose.

Next time, consider letting the jet land and watch the show.

 

[Mike Blackburn]

Yeah, at an untowered field I’d always give right of way to jets.. Having said that though, I’m often surprised at the small separation a tower will allow for a departure in front of a jet. In my flight training we’d get departure clearance in an SR20 with a B737 on 5mile final.... It looked very close.

 

[benyflyguy]

Although often in small GA we do have the right of way I sometimes thing about how much it costs me to idle for a few min vs the cost of him to go around. At uncontrolled fields I always tread with more caution

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't consider 10 miles for a Citation or 2-3 miles for a light single to be "on final" as "in the pattern." Just coordinate on the radio, it's not hard. And like Bob said, if you're still in doubt, then don't go, just wait a couple of minutes.

91.113(g) does not say anything about "in the pattern":

§91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(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

Final is final. 10 miles out is still on final.

That said, as long as the OP didn't cause a conflict, no harm, no foul. It sounds like the Citation decided to switch runways, but if they were abeam when the Flycatcher was on downwind, there was no conflict. And if the Citation chose to do right traffic, they were the ones in violation of a FAR...

 

[OverTQ]

91.113(g) does not say anything about "in the pattern":

Final is final. 10 miles out is still on final.

This topic really all comes down to the regulation and the definitions.

How would you define "final approach to land"?

 

[OverTQ]

From the AC:

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.

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Traffic.

Pilots conducting instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic, and should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic. Pilots are reminded that circling approaches require left-hand turns unless the approach procedure explicitly states otherwise. This has been upheld by prior FAA legal interpretations of § 91.126(b).

 

[danhagan]

Yeah, at an untowered field I’d always give right of way to jets.. Having said that though, I’m often surprised at the small separation a tower will allow for a departure in front of a jet. In my flight training we’d get departure clearance in an SR20 with a B737 on 5mile final.... It looked very close.

I've had tower at the local class C ask if I can accept an immediate departure several times ... no issues. Prefer that over the "where was that touchdown exactly" and the "caution wake turbulence" issues. I was #2 to depart behind a guy I know that ran into some wake ... from the hold short line, I thought he was a goner. I take the 3 minute delay personally ...

 

[bflynn]

91.113(g) does not say anything about "in the pattern":



Final is final. 10 miles out is still on final.

That said, as long as the OP didn't cause a conflict, no harm, no foul. It sounds like the Citation decided to switch runways, but if they were abeam when the Flycatcher was on downwind, there was no conflict. And if the Citation chose to do right traffic, they were the ones in violation of a FAR...

There are legal interpretations on what distance constitutes final. I don't remember the details at the moment, but one pilot was violated under 91.126 for making a right turn onto final 4 miles out...so we know that 4 miles at least was close enough that time to require left turns "in the pattern". But there are other cases that contradicted this and we know that just 5 miles out was NOT final.

My take on this is that you cannot be on final until you are at or close to your traffic pattern altitude because the FAA has consistently said they do not regulate entry into the pattern, only flow once you are in it. They regulate final, so final is part of the traffic pattern. The traffic pattern altitude is defined in an Advisory Circular somewhere...I again don't have the reference. They did this because there were ranges given of 800-1000' and the AC sets the values at 1000' for piston and 1500' for turbine. Ergo, if you are not close to those numbers, you are not in the pattern. That's just my logic, but I use it because it works.

The Citation couldn't be called in the pattern (or on final) until they were at least under 2000' AGL. I cannot say when that happened, but I'd bet they didn't drag it in at 2000' for 10 miles.

I'm sure someone with a better memory than me will be along momentarily with the references and surprised someone has not already chimed in with it.

 

[mryan75]

I dunno, taking off straight at a Citation coming down the pike doesn't seem like the textbook definition of good risk management to me. I can think of a dozen ways this could have gone wrong. I would have waited.

 

[benyflyguy]

With a midair it doesn’t matter who is right. Nobody wins. Everybody dies. Although they are rare, so is surviving one.
But for fun. Imagine the OP was the citation writing about what he did?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

With a midair it doesn’t matter who is right. Nobody wins. Everybody dies. Although they are rare, so is surviving one.
But for fun. Imagine the OP was the citation writing about what he did?

True... But in all the mid-air reports I've read, it seems the most common outcome is that one plane makes it and one doesn't. Second-most-likely outcome is both of them go in. I do know someone who was in a midair where everyone survived, though.

 

[Mike Blackburn]

I've had tower at the local class C ask if I can accept an immediate departure several times ... no issues. Prefer that over the "where was that touchdown exactly" and the "caution wake turbulence" issues. I was #2 to depart behind a guy I know that ran into some wake ... from the hold short line, I thought he was a goner. I take the 3 minute delay personally ...

Agree 100%

 

[RyanB]

I dunno, taking off straight at a Citation coming down the pike doesn't seem like the textbook definition of good risk management to me. I can think of a dozen ways this could have gone wrong. I would have waited.

Read it again. He didn’t takeoff ‘straight at a Citation coming down the pike.’ He does the run-up by 23 but reverts to 5 when the Citation reports 10 mile final. No opposite direction conflicts at all.

 

[azure]

Something doesn't sound right here. OP does run-up on 23, hears Citation calling 10 miles out for 05. OP announces departing 05, Citation calls 8 miles out. If OP was in position to depart 05 at that point, he would have to have taxied entire length of runway between those two calls by the Citation. If the runway was long enough for a Citation to land and take off on, the Citation should have gone a lot farther than 2 miles in that time, even if he had done some maneuvering in the interim such as a 360. I can think of 3 possibilities:

1. Citation's position reports were bogus.

2. OP wasn't in position to depart 05 when he reported departing that runway.

3. OP fast-taxied down the runway (would have to have been a VERY fast taxi) from 23 to 05 between the two calls.

The possibility of #1 would have prompted me to ask the Citation pilot to confirm his position. #2 would have been a misleading call on the part of the OP, and a definite no-no. And the OP didn't say anything about taxiing from 23 to 05, just that he announced departing 05 upon hearing that the Citation was 10 miles out, which kinda weighs against #3.

So I'm very confused as to what the actual sequence and timing of events was here.

 

[Clip4]

But maybe not the smart thing.

Un-towered airport. Flying a Skycatcher.
I'm doing run up on 23.
Citation calls straight in for 05, 10 miles out about the time I finish and get ready to take off.
I'm thinking, he's out and not in the pattern, 10 miles...I should be able to take off, turn left early, and leave him room to land without getting sporty.
So I call that I'm departing 5 for closed pattern.
As I hit the throttle, the Citation calls 8 miles and switching to a right entry for runway 05.
I take off, turn left, and am about mid-field when I see the Citation abeam me on the right pattern.
He turns and lands ahead of me.

As I understand, straight in approaches are not in the pattern and have no priority for landing so I was technically within my rights to take off.
Upon reflection, I'm thinking the better thing to do would have been to contact the Citation, offer to hold short, and just wait for him to get in.

Your thoughts?

I think the jet violated the regs for right traffic to 5 (if 5 is left traffic). I think you used poor ADM and situational awareness by opting to not delay until the jet landed or communicated better with him.

 

[Matt Brasher]

I'm trying hard to figure this out, but it doesn't make sense.

Why/how would the Citation be on a straight in for 5, but then call right traffic for 5?

And then of course the issue that was already brought up, which is that there is noway a Skycatcher can taxi 1 mile in the same time that a Citation covers only 2 miles.

 

[ljsuter]

Should be pointed out that if you waited for the Citation to land on 05 and then immediately took off from 23 there's a chance your LSA could end up climbing thru the jet's wake turbulence.

Larry

 

[Palmpilot]

Is it really "final" if he's outside, and likely well above, the pattern?

AFAIK, "final" is a segment of the traffic pattern. If an airplane on base gets to "final" first, they would have right-of-way over someone on a straight-in that's hasn't yet reached the perimeter of the traffic pattern.

There was an enforcement case in which the FAA issued an emergency order of revocation to a pilot who repeatedly failed to yield the right-of-way to aircraft on straight-in approaches. This enforcement action was upheld on appeal to the NTSB. So until I hear about straight-ins being subjected to enforcement action for failure to yield the right-of-way, that settles the matter for me.

As I understand, straight in approaches are not in the pattern and have no priority for landing so I was technically within my rights to take off.?

If there was time for you to take off and get out of the way before the straight-in traffic got close enough to be a factor, then it didn't matter who had the right-of-way.

The issue of who has the right-of-way was discussed recently in the following thread:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/1-5-nm-short-final.114444/

 

[OverTQ]

There was an enforcement case in which the FAA issued an emergency order of revocation to a pilot who repeatedly failed to yield the right-of-way to aircraft on straight-in approaches. This enforcement action was upheld on appeal to the NTSB. So until I hear about straight-ins being subjected to enforcement action for failure to yield the right-of-way, that settles the matter for me.

Please point it out if I missed it, but I found nothing in the opinion that asserts an aircraft on a straight-in approach, by virtue of being on a straight-in approach, has the right of way.

The language refers to aircraft being on "final". Some of those aircraft approached the airport straight-in, and some (like the Citation) flew the pattern. But, all were on final when he cut them off. [There is a difference between final and straight-in. An airplane 10 miles away is on straight-in, but unless it's the space shuttle, it's not on "final".]

The authors of the opinion simply ruled in accordance with the regulations (1) You can't cut someone off on final approach or landing, (2) Lower has the right-of-way, (3) You can't be careless/wreckless [e.g.: intentionally causing a collision hazard).

 

[Palmpilot]

Please point it out if I missed it, but I found nothing in the opinion that asserts an aircraft on a straight-in approach, by virtue of being on a straight-in approach, has the right of way.

The language refers to aircraft being on "final". Some of those aircraft approached the airport straight-in, and some (like the Citation) flew the pattern. But, all were on final when he cut them off. [There is a difference between final and straight-in. An airplane 10 miles away is on straight-in, but unless it's the space shuttle, it's not on "final".]

The authors of the opinion simply ruled in accordance with the regulations (1) You can't cut someone off on final approach or landing, (2) Lower has the right-of-way, (3) You can't be careless/wreckless [e.g.: intentionally causing a collision hazard).

The discussion of straight-ins begins on page 6 of the opinion and order:

On appeal, respondent, without directly challenging any of​

the law judge's findings or conclusions, see note 1, supra,
raises several circumstances he appears to believe argue against
affirmation of the Administrator's orders. Specifically, he
suggests that his conduct resulted from his confusion--for which
the FAA is assertedly responsible by virtue of allegedly
inconsistent regulations and advice--over the legality of
straight-in approaches at uncontrolled fields such as Millville.
In this connection he implies that he believed that if straight-in
approaches were not permitted, then aircraft landing in
accordance with the airport's traffic pattern need not yield to
aircraft that had not.5 He in effect submits that he now
understands, based in part on discussions with FAA personnel
after the hearing, that straight-in approaches are permissible at
uncontrolled fields and, accordingly, he will change his
operating procedures by yielding the right-of-way, when the rules
so dictate, to aircraft that have not flown the pattern. We find
in respondent's comments neither justification for excusing the
conduct on which the charges upheld by the law judge were based
nor reason for reducing the sanction he affirmed.

We think it irrelevant that respondent may have entertained​

some uncertainty, for whatever reason, as to the appropriateness
of straight-in approaches at an uncontrolled field, or whether
the nature, mix, and volume of aircraft operations at Millville
have developed to the point where the provision of air traffic
control services may be necessary to ensure air safety there.6
The right-of-way rules for landing at an airport prescribe
priorities for landing based on the relative positions of
aircraft as they approach an airport. They cannot be ignored
whenever another aircraft is executing a straight-in approach.
More to the point, the right-of-way rules do not purport to
supplant a pilot's independent duty to avoid flying dangerously
close to other aircraft, whether landing or not. Thus, any
confusion respondent may have harbored about the validity of
straight-in approaches at an uncontrolled airport neither excuses
nor explains his unsafe method of taking precedence over others
he knew were landing at Millville.​

To summarize, the respondent stated that he had previously believed that traffic in the pattern did not have to yield to straight-ins. The passage above makes it clear that both the FAA and the NTSB held the view that the fact that an aircraft is making a straight-in does not relieve other aircraft of the responsibility to yield the right-of-way to them.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Yeah, as a new pilot, it is amazing that these questions are still up for so much uncertainty and debate. After reading all of this, I think that nobody can really answer the question with a definite "yes" or "no" and it all comes down to a case by case basis. Final, straight in, and pattern are not set in stone (except Left turns), only advised, and change with each airport, aircraft, and maybe even day (a 30kt headwind on a 150 means that final may only be happening at 30kt over ground). Heck, even my DPE was lamenting that her airport pattern altitude was 700' AGL and not 1000' because that's the way it was always done back when there were only Cubs flying and the owner wants it that way. Certainly no aircraft coming in there on a 4 mile final is at 700' as there is a 1000' hill closer than 4 miles.

That means that we have to always be on our toes and try to be good (read: respectful, proficient, and cautious) pilots.

 

[Hang 4]

There's a lot here, but it basically only says that a straight-in is a valid approach. What it doesn't clarify is how to determine when the straight-in has the right of way over an aircraft in the pattern. In the case cited, pattern aircraft were "cutting off" Straight-ins. What it doesn't deal with and what many folks are asking is when does the straight-in shift to being on final?

In the real world, it seems much easier. Figure out where the straight in is and if you can't land and clear ahead of him, extend your downwind. For the straight-in, figure out how busy the pattern is and whether it makes more sense to work into the pattern or if you can slide in without distrupting a whole bunch of other planes.

The discussion of straight-ins begins on page 6 of the opinion and order:

On appeal, respondent, without directly challenging any of​

the law judge's findings or conclusions, see note 1, supra,
raises several circumstances he appears to believe argue against
affirmation of the Administrator's orders. Specifically, he
suggests that his conduct resulted from his confusion--for which
the FAA is assertedly responsible by virtue of allegedly
inconsistent regulations and advice--over the legality of
straight-in approaches at uncontrolled fields such as Millville.
In this connection he implies that he believed that if straight-in
approaches were not permitted, then aircraft landing in
accordance with the airport's traffic pattern need not yield to
aircraft that had not.5 He in effect submits that he now
understands, based in part on discussions with FAA personnel
after the hearing, that straight-in approaches are permissible at
uncontrolled fields and, accordingly, he will change his
operating procedures by yielding the right-of-way, when the rules
so dictate, to aircraft that have not flown the pattern. We find
in respondent's comments neither justification for excusing the
conduct on which the charges upheld by the law judge were based
nor reason for reducing the sanction he affirmed.

We think it irrelevant that respondent may have entertained​

some uncertainty, for whatever reason, as to the appropriateness
of straight-in approaches at an uncontrolled field, or whether
the nature, mix, and volume of aircraft operations at Millville
have developed to the point where the provision of air traffic
control services may be necessary to ensure air safety there.6
The right-of-way rules for landing at an airport prescribe
priorities for landing based on the relative positions of
aircraft as they approach an airport. They cannot be ignored
whenever another aircraft is executing a straight-in approach.
More to the point, the right-of-way rules do not purport to
supplant a pilot's independent duty to avoid flying dangerously
close to other aircraft, whether landing or not. Thus, any
confusion respondent may have harbored about the validity of
straight-in approaches at an uncontrolled airport neither excuses
nor explains his unsafe method of taking precedence over others
he knew were landing at Millville.​

To summarize, the respondent stated that he had previously believed that traffic in the pattern did not have to yield to straight-ins. The passage above makes it clear that both the FAA and the NTSB held the view that the fact that an aircraft is making a straight-in does not relieve other aircraft of the responsibility to yield the right-of-way to them.

 

[Hank S]

The discussion of straight-ins begins on page 6 of the opinion and order:

On appeal, respondent, without directly challenging any of​

the law judge's findings or conclusions, see note 1, supra,
raises several circumstances he appears to believe argue against
affirmation of the Administrator's orders. Specifically, he
suggests that his conduct resulted from his confusion--for which
the FAA is assertedly responsible by virtue of allegedly
inconsistent regulations and advice--over the legality of
straight-in approaches at uncontrolled fields such as Millville.
In this connection he implies that he believed that if straight-in
approaches were not permitted, then aircraft landing in
accordance with the airport's traffic pattern need not yield to
aircraft that had not.5 He in effect submits that he now
understands, based in part on discussions with FAA personnel
after the hearing, that straight-in approaches are permissible at
uncontrolled fields and, accordingly, he will change his
operating procedures by yielding the right-of-way, when the rules
so dictate, to aircraft that have not flown the pattern. We find
in respondent's comments neither justification for excusing the
conduct on which the charges upheld by the law judge were based
nor reason for reducing the sanction he affirmed.

We think it irrelevant that respondent may have entertained​

some uncertainty, for whatever reason, as to the appropriateness
of straight-in approaches at an uncontrolled field, or whether
the nature, mix, and volume of aircraft operations at Millville
have developed to the point where the provision of air traffic
control services may be necessary to ensure air safety there.6
The right-of-way rules for landing at an airport prescribe
priorities for landing based on the relative positions of
aircraft as they approach an airport. They cannot be ignored
whenever another aircraft is executing a straight-in approach.
More to the point, the right-of-way rules do not purport to
supplant a pilot's independent duty to avoid flying dangerously
close to other aircraft, whether landing or not. Thus, any
confusion respondent may have harbored about the validity of
straight-in approaches at an uncontrolled airport neither excuses
nor explains his unsafe method of taking precedence over others
he knew were landing at Millville.​

To summarize, the respondent stated that he had previously believed that traffic in the pattern did not have to yield to straight-ins. The passage above makes it clear that both the FAA and the NTSB held the view that the fact that an aircraft is making a straight-in does not relieve other aircraft of the responsibility to yield the right-of-way to them.

Thanks for showing us the decision that youve been referencing for so long! This says that straight in approaches are legal at non-towered fields, and that the established rules for right of way apply to planes on straight in. It DOES NOT give right if way to the straight in aircraft!

Furthermore, it explains that part of the reason for his revocation was that he was flying too close to the other planes when he didn't yield right of way. There are rules for that in the FARs to, only alluded to in your quote.

So again, NO, PLANES ON STRAIGHT IN APPROACH DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY HAVE RIGHT OF WAY.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So again, NO, PLANES ON STRAIGHT IN APPROACH DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY HAVE RIGHT OF WAY.

If they're close enough that there's a conflict, yes they do.

 

[Hank S]

If they're close enough that there's a conflict, yes they do.

If two planes wanting to land are close enough to have a conflict, right of way goes to the lower plane, provided they don't abuse this to cut off planes on final appproach. [In your often mentioned case, cutting off other planes close enough to be in conflict was the action.] So sometimes right of way will go to the plane in the pattern, sometimes to the guy straight in--it's case by case depending on speed, position and altitude.

But if you want to always yield to the other plane, that's fine. It's your choice. But that doesn't mean because you like sausage that the rest of us can't have bacon with our eggs.

 

[OverTQ]

The passage above makes it clear that both the FAA and the NTSB held the view that the fact that an aircraft is making a straight-in does not relieve other aircraft of the responsibility to yield the right-of-way to them.

You're leaving out a crucial piece. I will add it, to make the statement more closely match the opinion:

The passage above makes it clear that both the FAA and the NTSB held the view that the fact that an aircraft is making a straight-in does not relieve other aircraft of the responsibility to yield the right-of-way to them when the rules so dictate.

The rules don't say that traffic on a straight-in automatically gets right-of-way. They do say that if that traffic is on final, it has right-of-way. Straight-in approach is not the same things as final.

There's a lot here, but it basically only says that a straight-in is a valid approach. What it doesn't clarify is how to determine when the straight-in has the right of way over an aircraft in the pattern. In the case cited, pattern aircraft were "cutting off" Straight-ins. What it doesn't deal with and what many folks are asking is when does the straight-in shift to being on final?

Exactly.

If they're close enough that there's a conflict, yes they do.

Only because they'd be intentionally creating a collision hazard. Even though the pattern traffic might have the right-of-way, he can't knowingly create a collision hazard just because the straight-in traffic didn't yield as he should have.