Nasty people on the radio.

[iamtheari]

Where do you think final approach begins when a straight-in is flown?

According to other posts in this thread, 3 miles from the runway is an accepted cutoff between a straight-in approach that is not 'final' and a 'final' approach, for purposes of right-of-way discussions. And it is easily possible that a slow plane in the pattern will turn final in front of a faster plane on a 4-mile 'final' and require the latter to take action. If the cutoff is 3 miles, then the slower plane has the right of way and has not violated 91.113(g). That just makes it even more obvious that a little bit of communication can go a long way toward resolving conflicts before they turn into problems.

 

[iamtheari]

Indeed. My CFI at PAE told me about one such student (signed off for solo at another nearby airport) flew into PAE’s area without any radio call prior to announcing his tail number and “touch and go”, then would only reply “touch and go” in broken English to all requests by the tower...

Callsign Leeroy Jenkins.

 

[Pilawt]

Flew over to Buckeye (KBXK) yesterday. In a rural desert area 15 nm west of home drome KGYR, KBXK is known for cheap avgas (the reason for my visit) and as a place where the Lufthansa-owned flight school at KGYR sends solo students for pattern practice. I got on the CTAF and thought I'd stumbled into Düsseldorf International. Five Cirri were in the pattern, all with distinctly Teutonic radio voices.

They were all doing very well on the radio ... except for one guy who would end all (and I mean all) of his CTAF calls with the airport name in a drawn-out, melodramatic whisper. "Buckeye traffic, Cirrus XXX Echo Foxtrot, right downwind one seven ... [whispered] Buckkkkeeeeeyyyyyyye!"

 

[mscard88]

.

Another weird thing....he's a CFI with no instrument rating. How?

Only need a Commercial or ATP for CFI.

Ref: 61-195b

Edit: instrument required IAW 61.183 disregard above. Sorry about that.

 

[Palmpilot]

There are some good articles out there explaining the FAA's interpretation of this and they give good examples. You are correct in saying if you're on a 1 mile final, you have the right-of-way. The key word is "final". In the examples in a recent Flying magazine article, they showed that 3 miles out is considered final. Anything longer than that is usually interpreted as a straight-in approach and then you have to be careful not to interfere with someone flying a standard pattern.

Do you have a link, or do you recall which issue it was? I'd like to see their reasoning for that opinion.

They also used this to discuss direction of turns in a pattern. For example, you're entering a documented left hand pattern (with segmented circle) on a right base. Not legal. However, if you're five miles out and you turn to the right, then it's interpreted as a straight-in approach and it is legal.

I personally think they keep the rules vague to trap us!

Yeah, the case law is not very clear cut. On pages 8 to 9 of the Boardman decision, they summarize the earlier Rivard case (which unfortunately does not seem to be on line), implying that in an aircraft as large as a 737, not even six miles out is far enough to get around the direction-of-turns rule.

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3523.pdf

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't get Flying anymore, but if I'm more than 3 out and straight in, wouldn't I eventually be less than 3 out and be on final?

That's why I don't get this focus on determining how far out final approach extends. Unless someone is flying base three miles out, it doesn't make any difference when final begins, and if people are saying that there's no such thing as a four-mile final, then are you really "in the pattern" at three miles out?

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, but if you're further out that 3 miles, a plane can turn base in front of you and you don't have a complaint, no matter how fast you are. Once you're inside of 3 miles, you can say you're on final. Of course this is all based on examples and what the FAA felt was a good interpretation of the rules at the time!

What you "say" has no bearing on who has the right-of-way.

 

[Palmpilot]

Where to they teach calls like 'N2345' 5 east, last call this frequeny' ?
Or to call every taxi and where they're going. Surprised they don't five the address
This is a very busy pilot controlled airport soon to get a test virtual tower. I think that will be a lot of fun.

I've seen some so-called "pilot controlled" airports that were anything but controlled!

 

[EdFred]

61.183
To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a person must:

(a) Be at least 18 years of age;

(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's flight instructor certificate as are necessary;

(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate with:

(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought; and

(2) An instrument rating, or privileges on that person's pilot certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying for—

(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.

 

[Palmpilot]

But....but....but....he was in the pattern first!

Holy crap reading that, someone needed to drag that guy from his aircraft and beat him until he was unable to function on his own.

Surprisingly, the guy in that decision still owns the aircraft!

And apparently got his commercial again in 2010, and is now a flight instructor. Yipes.

Another weird thing....he's a CFI with no instrument rating. How?

The court mentions that the guy eventually admitted that he was confused about the regulations. He basically threw himself on the mercy of the court at that point, but I guess they weren't feeling very merciful!

 

[Palmpilot]

According to other posts in this thread, 3 miles from the runway is an accepted cutoff between a straight-in approach that is not 'final' and a 'final' approach, for purposes of right-of-way discussions. And it is easily possible that a slow plane in the pattern will turn final in front of a faster plane on a 4-mile 'final' and require the latter to take action. If the cutoff is 3 miles, then the slower plane has the right of way and has not violated 91.113(g).

I sure wouldn't bet either my certificate or my life on message board posts or magazine articles. If straight-in traffic is close enough or fast enough that my turning final in front of them might "require" them to take action, I'm going to yield. Period, end of story.

That just makes it even more obvious that a little bit of communication can go a long way toward resolving conflicts before they turn into problems.

That much, I agree with!

 

[iamtheari]

I sure wouldn't bet either my certificate or my life on message board posts or magazine articles. If straight-in traffic is close enough or fast enough that my turning final in front of them might "require" them to take action, I'm going to yield. Period, end of story.

Common sense does have a place in this discussion. I think we're mostly preaching to the choir at this point, though. Lamest thread topic creep ever: From nasty people on the radio to how to be more polite to each other.

 

[Palmpilot]

Common sense does have a place in this discussion. I think we're mostly preaching to the choir at this point, though. Lamest thread topic creep ever: From nasty people on the radio to how to be more polite to each other.

Sounds right on topic to me!

 

[mscard88]

61.183
To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a person must:

(a) Be at least 18 years of age;

(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's flight instructor certificate as are necessary;

(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate with:

(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought; and

(2) An instrument rating, or privileges on that person's pilot certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying for—

(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.

Yep. I dunno why I quoted 61.195. You are correct.

 

[Larry in TN]

Another weird thing....he's a CFI with no instrument rating. How?

The requirement for the instrument rating for CFIs does not go back all that far. I don't know the date that it was added but mid-1970s is probably close. The letter is dated 1994 and, in one of the footnotes, says that he had been a CFI for over 20 years. That puts his initial CFI at, or before, 1973.

 

[ZeroPapaGolf]

Yes, it looks like he had been a CFI before the revocation but the instructor certificates were not revoked along with the commercial. Perhaps he reinstated the commercial but not the instrument? Or never had one as mentioned above, though a 20k-hour pilot with no instrument rating would be surprising.

 

[EdFred]

But an instructor certificate is only valid with a pilot certificate. How do you keep renewing a flight instructor certificate when you don't have a pilot certificate to go with it?

He was without a commercial certificate from 1994 until 2010 according to the FAA database

 

[Lowflynjack]

Here's a good article from AOPA that I've shared before. Straight-In-Approaches It's worth reading.

In one example, the Alaska Airlines pilot was suspended because he made an un-authorized right-hand pattern. He claimed he turned onto final about 4 miles out, making it a straight-in approach. In this case, the judge said 5-6 miles out for an airline could be considered a straight-in approach, not 4 miles, or the 1-2 miles out they actually found out he turned. All at the judges discretion though, no law says be 5 or 6 miles out. The NTSB backed the judge.

In the second example, the jet making a straight-in approach interfered with a plane doing a practice approach. He was suspended for 20 days. This case applies more to what we're talking about. The NTSB said that even if it was a valid straight-in approach, he would have been in violation because he "interfered with other aircraft in the standard left-hand traffic pattern". So this time, he was 3.1 miles out when they say he was aligned with the runway. Wouldn't this be 'final'? I think the moral of the story is, if you're doing straight-in approaches, you'd better make sure you're not interfering with someone using the standard pattern.

And yes, when the airport is calm, I use a straight-in approach. I'm pretty careful about it though.

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's a good article from AOPA that I've shared before. Straight-In-Approaches It's worth reading.

In one example, the Alaska Airlines pilot was suspended because he made an un-authorized right-hand pattern. He claimed he turned onto final about 4 miles out, making it a straight-in approach. In this case, the judge said 5-6 miles out for an airline could be considered a straight-in approach, not 4 miles, or the 1-2 miles out they actually found out he turned. All at the judges discretion though, no law says be 5 or 6 miles out. The NTSB backed the judge.

In the second example, the jet making a straight-in approach interfered with a plane doing a practice approach. He was suspended for 20 days. This case applies more to what we're talking about. The NTSB said that even if it was a valid straight-in approach, he would have been in violation because he "interfered with other aircraft in the standard left-hand traffic pattern". So this time, he was 3.1 miles out when they say he was aligned with the runway. Wouldn't this be 'final'? I think the moral of the story is, if you're doing straight-in approaches, you'd better make sure you're not interfering with someone using the standard pattern.

And yes, when the airport is calm, I use a straight-in approach. I'm pretty careful about it though.

Thanks for finding that article. My link to it was broken by AOPA's redesign of their Web site, and their search feature was unable to find it.

What I get out of that article is that the case decisions are inconsistent, especially when you factor in the Fekete case that I linked to earlier. My take is that you can't count on having the right-of-way whether you're in the pattern or flying straight-in. So basically, if I'm in the pattern, I yield the right-of-way. If I'm making a straight-in, I yield the right-of-way.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Thanks for finding that article. My link to it was broken by AOPA's redesign of their Web site, and their search feature was unable to find it.

What I get out of that article is that the case decisions are inconsistent, especially when you factor in the Fekete case that I linked to earlier. My take is that you can't count on having the right-of-way whether you're in the pattern or flying straight-in. So basically, if I'm in the pattern, I yield the right-of-way. If I'm making a straight-in, I yield the right-of-way.

Agree. I really don't want to fight to get on the ground quicker. I enjoy flying and thinking you have right-of-way doesn't ensure the other guy will see/hear you and not chew your tail off! The NTSB report saying I had the right-of-way won't make my family feel any better.

 

[Shepherd]

So there I was, left downwind for 29 and there is another Cub flying in circles about 1/2 mile off the end of the runway.
Parked on the runway is a Cherokee, which I later find out has a student and an instructor in it.
I call the Cub and ask what's up. No response.
I call the Cherokee and asked what their intentions are. No response.
So I pull up along side the other Cub, and I can see that he has even less fuel left in his tank than I do.
After a bit of pantomime. I determine that his handheld has died, and he is starting to freak out because he can't land.
I call the FBO on the radio, and tell them to send the line monkey out in the car and find out: 1. Why is the Cherokee stopped smack dab in the middle of the runway? and 2. Why aren't they answering the radio?
Turns out the student accidentally changed frequencies, and the instructor was having a "teaching" moment and wasn't paying attention to anything outside the airplane.
When they finally got sorted out the instructor got snarky with me because I had "other options" and didn't have to publicly embarrass him.
I replied he had already done that to himself. Runway clear, both engines still running, time to put them down.
So the other Cub and I decided to show off, a little.
We landed together. He landed on the runway and I landed on the grass.
We taxied up together and spun them around like a couple of synchronized swimmers.
Out of the other Cub pops the most nimble 87 year old I've ever seen. (If you fly Cubs you know what I mean.)
We had a great chat.
Gotta love old pilots. They have lots of stories to tell about the old days.

 

[SkyDog58]

Just like fishermen.

 

[BrianNC]

Thanks for finding that article. My link to it was broken by AOPA's redesign of their Web site, and their search feature was unable to find it.

What I get out of that article is that the case decisions are inconsistent, especially when you factor in the Fekete case that I linked to earlier. My take is that you can't count on having the right-of-way whether you're in the pattern or flying straight-in. So basically, if I'm in the pattern, I yield the right-of-way. If I'm making a straight-in, I yield the right-of-way.

Same here. I was practicing landings for my commercial on Monday, and while doing so there were two different planes at different times call a straight in on 30, doing the ILS. Actually it was severe clear and they were just calling it ILS because they didn't want to do the pattern. But I digress. I kept doing my pattern work and making my calls and they made their calls. I just kept going until on my downwind, I saw the plane coming in, and I extended my downwind to yield to each one when they came in.

The time before that there was a Mooney in the pattern that must have been doing a 2 or 3 mile pattern. I'd turn on downwind after him and he was still way out there somewhere, but I could see him. Both times I just did a 360 for spacing and let him do his thing. The point being, I just yielded in all the instances and it was no big deal.

 

[Tom-D]

Gotta love old pilots. They have lots of stories to tell about the old days.

I know what you mean, I have coffee with the A6A Biz pilot, a RA5C pilot, and 2 other old flight engineers.
but we will be one short from now on.

https://obittree.com/obituary/us/wa...cremation-llc/radm-lyle-bull-usn-ret/3499664/