LesGawlik
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 974
- Display Name
Display name:
Good Guy
You obviously have never met my ex-wife.But nobody's perfect.
You obviously have never met my ex-wife.But nobody's perfect.
I do the vast majority of flights from my home airport, a Class D under a bravo shelf, next to another delta surface area (we only use the pattern to the east because the space to the west is controlled by another airport). I ALWAYS look at final as I'm flying downwind, base, and before taxiing onto the runway to take off.As you should.
There is no such thing as the best way to enter a pattern. There is only a best way for each scenario. Sometimes the best way is a straight in approach and this is true for every aircraft type.
You obviously have never met my ex-wife.
Personally, I think "pilot controlled" fields are a myth.I do the vast majority of flights from my home airport, a Class D under a bravo shelf, next to another delta surface area (we only use the pattern to the east because the space to the west is controlled by another airport). I ALWAYS look at final as I'm flying downwind, base, and before taxiing onto the runway to take off.
I appreciate what our controllers are doing, and find flying in our controlled airspace less stressful than pilot controlled fields (which I fly to regularly, but I avoid some, like AWO, like the plague).
So when you married Ms. Right, you didn't realize her first name was 'Always'?
I'm exactly the opposite. Totally comfortable in a crowded pattern, but terrified of talking to a controller. I think it has to do with how my brain processes things, spatially instead of verbally. I HATE drive thru windows and will always park and walk in.I ... find flying in our controlled airspace less stressful than pilot controlled fields.
Personally, I think "pilot controlled" fields are a myth.
I would exclude NORDO aircraft from "every aircraft", as I think they should join the pattern at a minimum on downwind.Sometimes the best way is a straight in approach and this is true for every aircraft type.
I hated even that non towered thang. Good ol' uncontrolled airport was just fine as it had been for just about ever. I started calling them non towered in my posts. I'm going back to uncontrolled.Yeah, and I'm glad they changed the designation to "non-towered" airports, which is a more accurate description.
A "pilot controlled" field is one where the controller happens to be a pilot.
I'm exactly the opposite. Totally comfortable in a crowded pattern, but terrified of talking to a controller. I think it has to do with how my brain processes things, spatially instead of verbally. I HATE drive thru windows and will always park and walk in.
One thing that worries me is the number of people who sound like they believe that traffic in the pattern has the right-of-way over traffic on final if the traffic on final got there via a straight-in-approach. That seems to me to be a dangerous belief, considering the wording of both Section 11.11 of AC 90-66B and 14 CFR 91.113(g). On the other hand, that which is legal is not always safe. No matter which side of the right-of-way argument you are on, no one should take it for granted that the other aircraft will yield, and everyone should keep their head on a swivel, be ready to take evasive action if needed, and quickly and concisely communicate in which direction they are deviating.
Are you reading the same doc as you quoted???
AC 90-66B goes into great detail in 9.5 and 9.6 that pilots not flying the standard pattern should "so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft", "avoid interrupting the flow of traffic", and "should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic". This clearly indicates that those landing contrary to the 'standard pattern' are subordinate to those in the standard pattern.
14 CFR 91.113(g) indicates that the lower aircraft has priority. Some jerk calling a final from way outside the pattern is usually higher than someone on base.
Just be reasonable, if you are on a 10, or even 5 mile final, do you really think you are actually on 'final' for the meaning of 14 CFR 91.113(g). Class-D is normally only 4NM. Do you think a guy 20 out at 3000' should have priority over the guy on downwind at 800' just because he says he calls out a 20 mile FINAL'????
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.
Are you reading the same doc as you quoted???
AC 90-66B goes into great detail in 9.5 and 9.6 that pilots not flying the standard pattern should "so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft", "avoid interrupting the flow of traffic", and "should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic". This clearly indicates that those landing contrary to the 'standard pattern' are subordinate to those in the standard pattern.
14 CFR 91.113(g) indicates that the lower aircraft has priority.
Some jerk calling a final from way outside the pattern is usually higher than someone on base.
Just be reasonable, if you are on a 10, or even 5 mile final, do you really think you are actually on 'final' for the meaning of 14 CFR 91.113(g). Class-D is normally only 4NM. Do you think a guy 20 out at 3000' should have priority over the guy on downwind at 800' just because he says he calls out a 20 mile FINAL'????
Correct because the specific, 91.113(g), takes precedence over the general, 91.113(d). If it didn't, then an airplane on right base would indeed have right of way over an airplane on final.
Except that 91.113(d), which gives gliders right of way over airplanes and others when converging (except head-on, or nearly so) doesn't apply when approaching to land (see above).
I remember when AC 90-66B was published. One of the main reasons it was published was because "jerks on final" were using the fact that they were on a long "final" to take priority and bust into a bunch of aircraft in the pattern. It was intended to remove the 'loophole' that was created by 14 CFR 91.113(g). It was even reported as such by the aviation press at the time:
https://generalaviationnews.com/2018/05/07/new-advisory-standardizes-non-towered-flight-operations/
From the article: "It makes clear that airplanes terminating an instrument procedure with a straight-in approach do not have the right of way over VFR traffic in the pattern, said Boll." I notice that he is "a member of the NBAA Access Committee," i.e., not an FAA employee.I remember when AC 90-66B was published. One of the main reasons it was published was because "jerks on final" were using the fact that they were on a long "final" to take priority and bust into a bunch of aircraft in the pattern. It was intended to remove the 'loophole' that was created by 14 CFR 91.113(g). It was even reported as such by the aviation press at the time:
https://generalaviationnews.com/2018/05/07/new-advisory-standardizes-non-towered-flight-operations/
There's one fly in that ointment. AC 90-66B is advisory and uses the word "should" in describing the pilot actions. FAR 91.113 is regulatory, not advisory, and uses the word "shall" in describing pilot actions, and in particular uses it in describing what the aircraft at the lower altitude shall NOT do with respect to the aircraft on final.
The Pilot/Controller Glossary defines Final Approach Course "without regard to distance." The only place that distance comes into it is in determining whether the aircraft turning final is close enough to the one that is already on final to be considered cutting in front of it.
Some seem to think that the VFR definition is "lined up on runway heading and declared on final". But where is that stated?
The P/CG definition for Final references the definition of Final Approach Course.Final Approach Course does not mean Final Approach. Two different things.
The P/CG definition for Final references the definition of Final Approach Course.
FINAL− Commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with a landing area.
(See FINAL APPROACH COURSE.)
If you can find an FAA definition of Final Approach, with a distance limit, I'll be happy to see it. Until then, the questions about how far out you can be and still be on final approach don't really settle anything.
Yes.Good gravy. Is there ANY rule in aviation that is hard and fast?
I was trying to be nice to those on the board who prefer that lifestyle. I LOVE quiet uncontrolled fields, I avoid busy uncontrolled fields.Personally, I think "pilot controlled" fields are a myth.
It is not a distance limit, it is a fix or event. Per the P/CG:
FINAL APPROACH [ICAO]− That part of an instrument approach procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or point, or where such a fix or point is not specified. a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified; or b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an aerodrome from which: 1. A landing can be made; or 2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.
FINAL APPROACH-IFR− The flight path of an aircraft which is inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the point where a circle-to-land maneuver or a missed approach is executed.
The third word in the term FINAL APPROACH COURSE has a meaning:
COURSE− a. The intended direction of flight in the horizontal plane measured in degrees from north.So the FINAL APPROACH COURSE just describes your directional status. It says nothing about whether you are on "final approach for landing".
Good gravy. Is there ANY rule in aviation that is hard and fast?
"Don't confuse your Italians: Airplanes fly by Bernoulli, not Marconi. "Good gravy. Is there ANY rule in aviation that is hard and fast?
Don’t be “no one”…Listen. And look out the window.This discussion and accident have taught me quite a bit. That 20 pilots discussing the same topic each have their own interpretation of rules and FAA suggestions and their own method of landing. That is scary and the fact that we dont have a unified method is why this happened. Some criticized the new pilot some the twin pilot. Heck if we cant even agree after the fact how is the low hour pilot to even stand a chance in adversity near a untowered, pilotuncontrolled, classless, ugh you know the place with a runway that all talk and no one listens.
Murphy's and Gravity are two that come to mind.
Good gravy. Is there ANY rule in aviation that is hard and fast?
Nah… Snoopy is still out there flying around the Sun somewhere.Takeoffs are optional. Landings are mandatory.
I would disagree.Takeoffs are optional. Landings are mandatory.
Add:
7. The speed, complexity or cost of an airplane is not an indicator of the pilots experience. Sometime wealthy inexperienced pilots fly very fast airplanes.
Wonder what the rules are in Italy.