Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,840
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Wonder what the rules are in Italy.
The voice of Roy D. Mercer comes to mind ... "how big a old boy are you?"
Wonder what the rules are in Italy.
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,
What goes up, must come down.Good gravy. Is there ANY rule in aviation that is hard and fast?
Hate to screw up a good meme, but Bernoulli wasn’t Italian. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-Bernoulli"Don't confuse your Italians: Airplanes fly by Bernoulli, not Marconi. "
Ron Wanttaja
What goes up, must come down.
Who said anything about "dismissing" an Advisory Circular? They typically offer good advice on a variety of topics. But you can't count on everyone accepting them either, which is also why you need to know the ROW regulations, particularly because the guy flying a 10 mile straight in may know that he has the ROW and ASSume that everyone else will remain clear. I think in this Watsonville crash, the twin pilot used his radio like a horn - not a two way communication device.This mentality of dismissing an AC because it is not regulatory is why people die.
Hate to screw up a good meme, but Bernoulli wasn’t Italian. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Daniel-Bernoulli
What about the mentality of dismissing these parts of that AC:This mentality of dismissing an AC because it is not regulatory is why people die.
What about the mentality of dismissing these parts of that AC:
"The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way."
"Throughout the traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in § 91.113".
That last sentence is especially true given the confusion the FAA has created around this issue.Well, can't remember the exact wording but pretty sure it is something like there is not a rule for every situation and when there is not pilots should use their best judgment...in this case what is considered "good judgment" in this scenario in the eyes of the FAA is laid out plain as day in the above AC that a straight in should not disrupt the traffic pattern. Even though he may have been regulatory correct, he failed at understating that principal and he killed another pilot IMO.
Just because you can does not mean you should.
Just because you can does not mean you should.
I'm a little confused. The guy doing the straight in final was born in 1947...
I'm a little confused. The guy doing the straight in final was born in 1947...
But the guy who cut in front of him was a good bit younger.
He was acting like a kid!I'm a little confused. The guy doing the straight in final was born in 1947...
I do as well, not so much for a legal straight-in as for his excessive speed in doing it.You are correct there. I place a heavier blame on a 180kn straight in final with traffic in the pattern though. 1 made a mistake, 1 was off the rails.
I do as well, not so much for a legal straight-in as for his excessive speed in doing it.
I believe that there is probably some airspeed that justifies a straight in approach. I don't know what speed that is (I do know that I don't fly a plane that would qualify), but when you consider that the turning radius is proportional to the square of airspeed, it means that an aircraft going twice as fast needs four times the turning radius. That can have the effect of forcing an aircraft with a high stall speed to circle the field then still have to enter on a longer than usual final. As much as I don't want to see more regulations, I think limiting the applicability of the straight-in (maybe based on stall speed? ) would benefit all of us from a safety standpoint.
So how is this for simple math example to formulate a regulation?
A Cirrus (used as a fast, clean design) has a stall speed of 60 knots. If you allow an approach speed of 120% over published stall speed, his safe approach speed could be 72 knots. A King Air has a stall speed of 80 knots, yielding a similar calculation for an approach speed of 96 knots. (Those numbers mean a King Air has nearly twice the turning radius at estimated approach speed.) A regulation that prohibited straight in approaches to aircraft with a stall speed of, say, less than 65 knots would eliminate the Cirrus and similar aircraft from straight-ins but permit the King Air and similar faster aircraft to exercise that option. Obviously virtually most all of the fleet of single engine aircraft would also have to enter the pattern normally, and those that qualified for straight-ins would be justified in doing them. The Cirrus driver could insist he needs a higher approach speed, but that would still not permit him to fly straight in because it's based on published airspeed, not pilot preference.
It would not take many calls to the FSDO reporting violations to quickly change the behavior, and knowing that all aircraft on final have a minimum high approach speed (vs. the C172 meandering down final), helps pilots in the pattern to better estimate flow and plan their approach.
(NOTE: This is not anti-Cirrus. It's an example of a fast airplane being able to operate slowly on approach.)
I'm not sure what you are trying to solve here.
<snip>
We don't need more rules, hell, read this thread, we can barely agree on the rules we have now.
I don't care what the speed limit should be. I'm just suggesting that certain aircraft are perfectly capable entering the pattern before the base leg, and should do so. Obviously, the allowance of straight-ins for all aircraft has been abused too often.
One of the reasons this thread is so long is that (1) there's plenty of fault to find on either or both pilots in the Watsonville crash and (2) the current 91.113 isn't understood by many pilots, and it addressed the location where well over half the mid air collisions occur.
I have a question (as a non-pilot): Would it be a good idea (or bad or just useless) to mandate calling your airspeed when on a straight-in final? So... when the 340 called his 10 mile straight-in final, he would also declare his airspeed, and again every time he repeated the call.
I don't think requiring airspeed declarations of aircraft in the pattern would do anything, but it seems like a reasonable idea for straight-ins due to the wide variance in aircraft capability.
Would this help situational awareness or just over-saturate the pilots in the pattern?
P.S. Sorry if this question was raised elsewhere.
Some aircraft don't have radios, and others don't use them or are on the wrong frequency. It does help when someone calling a final from way out does so in minutes (or seconds), as some pilots currently do. There's some inherent inaccuracy in time to destination, even with GPS.
I have a question (as a non-pilot): Would it be a good idea (or bad or just useless) to mandate calling your airspeed when on a straight-in final? So... when the 340 called his 10 mile straight-in final, he would also declare his airspeed, and again every time he repeated the call.
I don't think requiring airspeed declarations of aircraft in the pattern would do anything, but it seems like a reasonable idea for straight-ins due to the wide variance in aircraft capability.
Would this help situational awareness or just over-saturate the pilots in the pattern?
P.S. Sorry if this question was raised elsewhere.
Since he was born in 1947, maybe he had to pee really bad. (Not joking!)I agree. Nothing wrong with a legal straight in and as you said, could be necessary in some cases. But he was way above landing or pattern speed from what I've read on the airplane in question. Something was way off on that straight in.
How would you factor instrument approaches into that regulation, especially in MFR conditions? And some airports don't have circling minimums published. (HAF is an example.)So how is this for simple math example to formulate a regulation?
A Cirrus (used as a fast, clean design) has a stall speed of 60 knots. If you allow an approach speed of 120% over published stall speed, his safe approach speed could be 72 knots. A King Air has a stall speed of 80 knots, yielding a similar calculation for an approach speed of 96 knots. (Those numbers mean a King Air has nearly twice the turning radius at estimated approach speed.) A regulation that prohibited straight in approaches to aircraft with a stall speed of, say, less than 65 knots would eliminate the Cirrus and similar aircraft from straight-ins but permit the King Air and similar faster aircraft to exercise that option. Obviously virtually most all of the fleet of single engine aircraft would also have to enter the pattern normally, and those that qualified for straight-ins would be justified in doing them. The Cirrus driver could insist he needs a higher approach speed, but that would still not permit him to fly straight in because it's based on published airspeed, not pilot preference.
It would not take many calls to the FSDO reporting violations to quickly change the behavior, and knowing that all aircraft on final have a minimum high approach speed (vs. the C172 meandering down final), helps pilots in the pattern to better estimate flow and plan their approach.
(NOTE: This is not anti-Cirrus. It's an example of a fast airplane being able to operate slowly on approach.)
...I also think it is hugely important that pilots talk to each other when there is a potential conflict. I was on another forum, making this point, and a guy there was taking me to task saying that those extra radio calls are a bad thing because it ties up the airwaves, and that making standard radio calls is all that is needed. That's what these guys were doing, making standard radio calls, neither of them figured it out. If one had spoken up to the other, it would have snapped both of them out of it and this would not have happened....
... A good flight review would have probably nipped the twin pilot's excessive speed habit in the bud...
For a non-pilot that's a good "thinking outside the box" question. Yes, if you're coming in 40 knots over landing gear operating speed it would be good to announce it because at 180 kts, if that's a reliable speed, this was a buzz job in the making not a landing. Mandatory, though? Nah. Discussing this accident during flight reviews ought to be mandatory though. Speed kills and don't fly over top of anybody trying to land.I have a question (as a non-pilot): Would it be a good idea (or bad or just useless) to mandate calling your airspeed when on a straight-in final?
FAA:
"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."
and:
"Pilots conducting instrument approaches in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) 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."
Also FAA:
"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..."
Those, plus the fact that the FAA has not provided an unambiguous definition of "final approach" that applies to both VFR and IFR traffic, make it easy to understand why people are confused about right-of-way in this situation.
So relying on the rules is a very bad crash avoidance strategy. Desiring more rules is also probably a bad strategy.
So relying on the rules is a very bad crash avoidance strategy.
Desiring more rules is also probably a bad strategy.
. . . unless all you do is make existing rules clear and not open to misinterpretation.
Relying SOLELY on the rules certainly is. We have to use all of the tools at our disposal
I think the published guidance could be written less confusingly.
I saw you were a non-pilot, and that it was your first post. I was gentler to you than I'd be to some of the reprobates around here.
As for why the excessive speed, I like Occams' Razor: The simplest explanation is that the twin pilot hadn't intended to land. It's possible he was going to do a high-speed low-altitude pass along the runway, then pull up and enter the pattern normally. He may have been concentrating on making a real high-speed low pass, and not seen the 152. The wreckage should tell the tale; whether the landing gear was down or not. If it was still retracted, he was doing a buzz job.
Ron Wanttaja
Wasn't a Baron, was a Cessna 340. Gear speed for a 340 is 140 knots.The Baron's (B58's) max gear extension speed is just about 155 knots, if I remember correctly -
it's been years since I've flown one. If it's not that exactly, it's very close to that - 152 maybe.
If the Baron pilot was doing a high-speed pass, he should have been at pattern
altitude for twins - which is 1,500' AGL. Going down low at that high rate of
speed makes no sense - it's not only idiotic, it's fatally dangerous!