More pattern police nonsense.

roncachamp said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Pilots not certain of themselves or their experience might not have as easy a time dealing with an unusual approach than what they're accustomed to seeing. I would have no trouble extending an approach for oncoming traffic, but I would not have had that easy a time a few years ago.

Add to that the need for fairly accurate position reports. I've heard aircraft miscommunicate their position and nearly cause aerial collisions. The same degree of accuracy should not be needed for position reports when using more standard pattern entry.

Again, I think it unwise and a trifle discourteous to just fly in an expect everyone to move out of your way. That's why I tend to be judicious in my use of straight-in approaches.
 
This discussion can be summarized by saying - People that are discourteous a-holes on the ground don't stop being that when they're flying in the pattern. Life is full of them and your happiness and possibly your safety is found in expecting them to be out there.
 
PittsDriver said:
This discussion can be summarized by saying - People that are discourteous a-holes on the ground don't stop being that when they're flying in the pattern. Life is full of them and your happiness and possibly your safety is found in expecting them to be out there.
Click to expand...
...and not pressing the issue with them if they act on their ignorance or obstreperousness.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and not pressing the issue with them if they act on their ignorance or obstreperousness.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Though there is a clause in the man code to the effect of "sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do."
 
It's possible that some people might look at a straight in approach as someone "cutting in line"... I don't consider it that way, but there might be *some* people who do... If I hear a few people in the pattern, I'm not likely to do a straight in approach... If it is late at night and the pattern is empty, yeah, I'll do a straight in approach and I might even land *with* the wind if it is not too much and if that would result in me not having to taxi the whole runway back to my hangar...
 
The airport I fly at is in Class G, so of course all the following are true there:

Flying NORDO is legal and acceptable.
Flying without a transponder is legal and acceptable.
Flying straight in is legal and acceptable.
Doing touch and goes as desired is legal and acceptable.

So one day early in my training while flying downwind and getting ready to turn base, my instructor alerted me "Traffic coming straight in." I obviously was not yet good at scanning. The Zaon MRX PCAS on the dash was silent. No calls from the other plane on the radio. It was a biplane - likely no electrical system, so no radio (not even a handheld) and no mode C transponder (or likely any transponder.) Made for a quick lesson in how to extend downwind after having set things up. The NORDO, transponderless, straight-in biplane with no doubt limited visibility above and below did a touch and go and immediately departed the area. Guess they didn't need to land there at all - which I guess is why they felt it was so important to waste as little time as possible doing a standard pattern approach.

Later, I read a nice AOPA safety guide that said that among those who would benefit the most from a standard pattern approach are NORDO airplanes. Obviously not widely read where it would help.
 
I had someone make a couple calls while I was waiting to depart. They called one runway and landed opposite direction. The calls at least alerted me. Though I didn't see them until fairly short final because I was departing opposite direction into the wind, their calls separated us.
After they landed, and I called opposite direction departure it clicked with them and they apologized. No problem in this case. I can see how a NORDO plane doing the same thing could have caused bent metal.

Best,

Dave
 
steingar said:
Pilots not certain of themselves or their experience might not have as easy a time dealing with an unusual approach than what they're accustomed to seeing. I would have no trouble extending an approach for oncoming traffic, but I would not have had that easy a time a few years ago.

Add to that the need for fairly accurate position reports. I've heard aircraft miscommunicate their position and nearly cause aerial collisions. The same degree of accuracy should not be needed for position reports when using more standard pattern entry.

Again, I think it unwise and a trifle discourteous to just fly in an expect everyone to move out of your way. That's why I tend to be judicious in my use of straight-in approaches.
Click to expand...

When you're driving, do you expect others to know and follow the rules of the road? If yes, then why don't you have similar expectations when you fly?
 
How's this for nit picking?
Cessna 1234 departing 09 xxx.
Response by unknown: There is no runway 09, but, there is a runway 9.
 
CollinLeon said:
It's possible that some people might look at a straight in approach as someone "cutting in line"... I don't consider it that way, but there might be *some* people who do...
Click to expand...

So where is the end of the line? How do you approach to land at an untowered airport when the pattern is full of touch-and-go traffic?
 
roncachamp said:
When you're driving, do you expect others to know and follow the rules of the road? If yes, then why don't you have similar expectations when you fly?
Click to expand...

Indeed I do. Straight-in approaches are conversant with the FARs. If they weren't I think they would find less acceptance here.
 
steingar said:
Indeed I do. Straight-in approaches are conversant with the FARs. If they weren't I think they would find less acceptance here.
Click to expand...

That seems inconsistent with your earlier statement; "Again, I think it unwise and a trifle discourteous to just fly in an expect everyone to move out of your way."
 
roncachamp said:
So where is the end of the line? How do you approach to land at an untowered airport when the pattern is full of touch-and-go traffic?
Click to expand...

If it's full of touch-and-go traffic, it probably means a bunch of students which means a bunch of Cessnas... Which also means that they are going to be flying 60 kt patterns. The only time I'm flying that slow is during the last stages of my flare, right before the wheels touch the ground, so I'm not going to be flying the same pattern that they are flying... If I *really* just *have* to get to that airport, I'll probably fly a bit wider pattern and enter my base a bit further out. Depends upon how tightly they're packed... If you are comfortable with your plane, you can do what is necessary to make it work... If you are not, the least little thing that ATC throws at you is going to rattle you... I remember one night over at HOU, the tower had me abort my landing to 36 because of other traffic and start an orbit of the airport at 300 ft and I was within the fence line of the airport. At one point, they had me do a 360 to allow another aircraft to either land or whatever and then had me land after coming out of the 360... Come to think of it, it was probably more than a 360...
 
roncachamp said:
When you're driving, do you expect others to know and follow the rules of the road? If yes, then why don't you have similar expectations when you fly?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think my definition of defensive driving is to expect that others will not follow the laws or road etiquette if given a chance to misbehave. That's why, for example, I taught all my kids to have their foot hovering over the brake pedal every time they're about to roll through an intersection.

On the notion of cutting in line in the pattern - if I land and you didn't have to do anything different than you were planning to do and got on the ground at the exact same moment you would have anyway had I never been there - where's the "cutting" that's happening? I've been known to be #2 on the downwind and land before number one by turning inside and landing. I've done this when #1 is flying a really wide, slow pattern and I usually preface my action with something like "#1, the Pitts is going to turn base inside you and I'll be off the runway before you turn final." I've never been barked at for this and, thus far, have always found pilots quite agreeable to these pattern antics.
 
CollinLeon said:
If it's full of touch-and-go traffic, it probably means a bunch of students which means a bunch of Cessnas... Which also means that they are going to be flying 60 kt patterns. The only time I'm flying that slow is during the last stages of my flare, right before the wheels touch the ground, so I'm not going to be flying the same pattern that they are flying... If I *really* just *have* to get to that airport, I'll probably fly a bit wider pattern and enter my base a bit further out.
Click to expand...

How is that different from a straight-in in the eyes of that pattern traffic? Wouldn't that also be viewed as "cutting in line"?

Depends upon how tightly they're packed...
Click to expand...
They're all piston singles spaced 1/2 mile in trail and there is no gap larger than that.

If you are comfortable with your plane, you can do what is necessary to make it work...
Click to expand...
I'm comfortable with my plane, what is necessary to make it work?

If you are not, the least little thing that ATC throws at you is going to rattle you...
Click to expand...
It's an untowered field, there is no ATC.
 
Last weekend I entered downwind for #2 while another AC was on crosswind. Would that be considered 'cutting'? He didn't say anything about it but as he came up behind me I could tell that I was way slower than him.

Kind of felt bad about it but in retrospect I think it was safer than doing a 360 outside of the pattern (more radio calls, blind turns, etc).
 
CollinLeon said:
It's possible that some people might look at a straight in approach as someone "cutting in line"... I don't consider it that way, but there might be *some* people who do...
Click to expand...
Not just "possible" -- they're out there, and they are often quick to "correct" pilots attempting a straight-in over CTAF. :sigh: Once in a while, we get lucky, and the person they "correct" is an FAA Inspector, but that is an unfortunately rare occurrence.
 
Like I said, I only asked once, and very nicely and for very good reason. There isn't anything inherently wrong with it so long as the pilot maintains situational awareness.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
whether you agree with John Deakin or not, this is always good reading. He has a real common sense approach and has spent more time flying in different environments than I ever will.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Well-written, and I agree with what he says in this case.

I don't really care what anyone else does in the pattern, nor do I expect them to care what I do. Even in Canada. Of course, when I go places in Canada, I'm the only plane within at least a 50 nm radius in most cases.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well-written, and I agree with what he says in this case.

I don't really care what anyone else does in the pattern, nor do I expect them to care what I do. Even in Canada. Of course, when I go places in Canada, I'm the only plane within at least a 50 nm radius in most cases.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were warned that you were coming! :goofy:
 
Pegasus said:
How's this for nit picking?
Cessna 1234 departing 09 xxx.
Response by unknown: There is no runway 09, but, there is a runway 9.
Click to expand...

Probably a non-USA trained pilot, in this part of the world we have miles and miles of runways 09 and not a millimeter of runway 9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top