Do the same rules apply?How about it?
Do the same rules apply?How about it?
Yes. The difference is that the FAA would be given some leeway in interpreting its own regulations.Do the same rules apply?
Well. There is a system in development that will allow pilots to select traffic on a cockpit display and designate a target to independently mange spacing at the direction of ATC in terminal environment. So I’m guessing it has the capability to be rather accurate. Is there not technical specifications data provided by the manufacturer regarding the refresh rates for data display?It depends. It can be quite up to date if conditions are right. Which I think is part of the "lure".
Well then, all we have to do is find a case where the FAA has successfully issued a violation to a glider pilot for not yielding the right-of-way to the pilot of a powered plane on final.Yes. The difference is that the FAA would be given some leeway in interpreting its own regulations.
There are no right-of-way rules that apply to traffic patterns specifically. The only rule says people on final have row over others, and the guy at the lower altitude has priority over that. But even that doesn't say you can't turn final in front of someone on a long straight in.If there was blame for the 152 pilot, it's thinking the C340 would follow right-of-way rules common for a pattern entry. Easy to armchair the 152's decisions. He had few choices and his level of training perhaps less. We have a duty to watch for students and rusty pilots practicing; and work with them & not bully away around them.
There are no right-of-way rules that apply to traffic patterns specifically. The only rule says people on final have row over others, and the guy at the lower altitude has priority over that. But even that doesn't say you can't turn final in front of someone on a long straight in.
So what is the definition of "on final"? That ten mile one, or that one mile one?There are no right-of-way rules that apply to traffic patterns specifically. The only rule says people on final have row over others, and the guy at the lower altitude has priority over that. But even that doesn't say you can't turn final in front of someone on a long straight in.
There are no right-of-way rules that apply to traffic patterns specifically. The only rule says people on final have row over others, and the guy at the lower altitude has priority over that. But even that doesn't say you can't turn final in front of someone on a long straight in.
I absolutely do agree with that interpretation, and that situation can be greatly enhanced with a little communication between the converging aircraft, although that's not always necessary. But the aircraft turning from base to final loses sight of the aircraft on final, while the aircraft on final may not have sight of the aircraft below and in front of him, so it's no time to cut it close and just hope you got it right.It says you can't use the "lower altitude" rule to cut off a trailing aircraft. However, it doesn't say that if you got one plane on a five-mile final, that nobody can turn in front of him on a standard base-to-final turn.
i have always thought so that you have time to land and clear the runway without causing the other aircraft an issueSo what is the definition of "on final"? That ten mile one, or that one mile one?
I don't think the distance matters. A typical aircraft on a 10 mile final is usually more than 5 minutes from being a factor in the pattern. You only need to worry about him when he's close, just like an aircraft to your right 10 miles away isn't a factor until there's a need for separation, at which time you need to provide that separation. If he's converging from the left, he needs to provide the separation.So what is the definition of "on final"? That ten mile one, or that one mile one?
That sounds like an additional rule but I like it.Hi everyone.
No additional rules required, NO straight ins at non-towered airport, unless you were / are told you can can do it, given priority, by other acft in the pattern and or you can insure that you are completely alone.
I've been chastised for trying to coordinate a straight in with existing traffic in the pattern.
I've been chastised for passing outside and above of downwind traffic (in order to rejoin downwind again) when they were too slow for me to stay behind them.
There's a reason Oshkosh has a warbird arrival as opposed to making all traffic use the same pattern.
Not commenting on the planes which are the subject of this thread.
It's seems some believe that straight in approaches are wrong or inconsiderate for some reason. I don't understand why.
If ones plane is such that they cant stay in a traffic pattern at the airport they are landing then perhaps find an alternate if the pattern is busy. Rather than get creative or comit suicide/homocide by jumping in front of other planes burning the pattern. Just like a small slow plane would not be landing between Jets at a class Bravo. Know your plane and be considerate dont assume you deserve special attention. A non towered airport is not OshKosh with very specific instructions and multiple peeps paying attention.
The 152 pilot is at fault for trying to get "one more in", as if he was entitled.
Regs don't say that. There's no guarantee that you are ever in a position where other air traffic "won't be an issue" to you.i have always thought so that you have time to land and clear the runway without causing the other aircraft an issue
The fact that there is so much disagreement on the subject of right-of-way in this situation is proof by itself that clarification is needed.The obvious issue is ambiguity in guidance on what constitutes "on final" for a straight in approach, and how that is applied to determine ROW. Until that is clarified so that pilots in the air have a common understanding to predict other's actions, we will continue to see accidents like this one.
And there’s a difference between clarification & regulation.The fact that there is so much disagreement on the subject of right-of-way in this situation is proof by itself that clarification is needed.
The obvious issue is ambiguity in guidance on what constitutes "on final" for a straight in approach, and how that is applied to determine ROW. Until that is clarified so that pilots in the air have a common understanding to predict other's actions, we will continue to see accidents like this one.
Discussion about final-aircraft-have-the-right-of-way remind me of driving my first car, a 1946 Willys Jeep. Funner than snot, but had a top speed of about 50 MPH.I don't think it's such an issue of where the final approach begins, rather it's where the conflict begins, which is the only time ROW matters anyway. As others have said you can land safely ahead of an aircraft on long final. It's not until he gets close enough to be a hazard, at which point you cannot "pass over, under or ahead of" him unless well clear, nor can you cut in front of him just because you're at the lower altitude.
I see it as five: Distress OR converging OR approaching head-on OR overtaking OR landing.I see right of way rules as two flavors.
Might not have been required in the airspace.Would be interesting to know why the 152 wasn't on ADS-B. Equipment failure, maybe?
I don't think it's such an issue of where the final approach begins, rather it's where the conflict begins, which is the only time ROW matters anyway. As others have said you can land safely ahead of an aircraft on long final. It's not until he gets close enough to be a hazard, at which point you cannot "pass over, under or ahead of" him unless well clear, nor can you cut in front of him just because you're at the lower altitude.
One thing to remember is that a faster airplane making standard rate turns is going to fly a much wider pattern than a slower aircraft doing the same thing, so even if he turns final from his normal full pattern he may be a long way out on final anyway. That's why it's so critical while on downwind and base to assure that you are not interfering with his approach, and take evasive action quickly so as not to end up like the C172 in this case, who almost certainly tried to pass ahead of the twin on the attempted go-around.
(No doubt that speed could have been a big factor in this accident, however.)
Your post illustrates the confusion. What is a "long" final? Where is that term defined anywhere in an FAA reference? What are the criteria to differentiate it from a "short" final?
If it's installed it's required to be operating, regardless of airspace.Might not have been required in the airspace.
Here’s a related scenario. I was flying into South Valley Airport, just South of SLC this Spring. The airport is only a few miles south of SLC Class B, that goes to the surface. I came directly from the south, the pattern had 3-4 aircraft in it, training mostly. With the tight airspace I wanted to do a straight-in, but wasn’t gonna be a butinski doing it.
I made my calls, watching for a gap to land straight in, that gap wasn’t there. I went to the right side of the runway, approach speed, sequencing off T&G traffic. I had to turn crosswind tight behind with airspace ahead. I followed downwind, then got spacing for my full stop.
With my scenario, no one had their dander up, safety was never compromised. The other idea would be to go off to the west & maneuver for the 45 to the downwind entry.
View attachment 109802
so if i'm on a downwind in an SR22 to some runway about to turn a 1/2-mile base and a 152 calls an 8 mile final straight in you're saying what exactly?Regs don't say that. There's no guarantee that you are ever in a position where other air traffic "won't be an issue" to you.
If it's installed it's required to be operating, regardless of airspace.
NoOperative, not operating, no?
(f) Except as prohibited in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless -
(1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or
(2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.
on CUE, someone calls a straight in final at 5 out. The student in front of me turns base anyway.
Sounds like the straight-in wasn’t the only issue in the pattern.but #'s 2 and 3 don't see me