One's Company, Two's a Crowd

[mrtyler]

Today featured some of that fine California "winter" weather that drives up the local cost of living. It was so nice that Half Moon Bay (HAF) wasn't buried in fog, so I popped over the hill for a few landings.

(There's no diagram in the A/FD so refer to https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5134444,-122.5011667,1639m/data=!3m1!1e3 if you like.)

As I taxied back to the approach end of 12, I listened to the suddenly very busy CTAF. A Sundowner was approaching from the east, eleven miles out. Someone else was overlying the airport at 2500 and then circling to enter downwind. Most significant to me as I pulled up and held short of 12 was a Mooney on a one and a half mile base-to-final and a Bonanza who had declared a few minutes ago that he was 5 miles out on a straight-in.

The Mooney reported he had me in sight and was landing. The Bonanaza reported that he had the Mooney in sight and was landing #2 behind him.

HAF has a pretty big runway (5000 x 150), but if you miss the midfield intersection you have to go all the way to the end unless you like taxiing through artichokes. I watched the Mooney miss the turn and roll on down to the end.

Meanwhile, the Bonanza did one or two anemic S-turns and then landed a few thousand feet behind the Mooney. The Mooney turned off at the end and announced that he was clear of the active. The Bonanaza, who made the midfield turn at around the same time as the Mooney turned off past the 30 numbers, announced that he was also clear.

I have some questions about this series of events.

1. In general, I feel that it's a little anti-social to just make a straight-in approach when there are numerous people hanging out in the pattern. Obviously different things make sense in different situations, but what do y'all think of the Bo's first decision in this case?

2. It's not uncommon to get a "line up and wait" behind a landing aircraft, but I've never seen a tower authorize someone to land when the previous landing aircraft had yet to clear the runway. Indeed, I've been asked to go around when the guy in front of me tarries a bit getting clear.

I'm a little ashamed to admit that I can't find the FAA regs about this. Closest I can find:

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.

Can someone point me to anything more applicable?

3. Legality aside, how do you feel about the safety of the Bonanza's landing? If you're the Mooney pilot, are you upset with the Bo pilot?

 

[Captain]

There is a minimum distance tower can clear a plane to land with another still on the runway. Both planes have to be pistons IIRC. A jet / turbine always gets the whole thing in order to be cleared to land.

I thought you said you were on CTAF though. Was there a tower involved in this or not?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Did the Bo screw up anyone who was already in the pattern on downwind? Doesn't sound like it.

There is no rule against two aircraft on the runway at the same time. The Mooney was purd near a mile down the way when the Bo landed? How much room do you really need?

No tower, no foul.

 

[flyingron]

KHAF has no tower. There's no prohibition on two aircraft being on the runway at the same time. The general prohibition on not operating so close to another aircraft as to cause a problem.

There is absolutely NO reason however to be "in position and hold" at an untowered airport.
Pointless and incredibly unsafe sitting there with your blind side to the potential conflicting traffic.

No prohibition on doing straight-ins when there are planes in traffic. In fact, once you're close enough to be considered on final, the plane on final has the right of way. You can start a "Captain: Is this pilot jerk" thread later.

Frankly, while it caused kaniptions of the CFI in the right seat, I see nothing less safe with planting it on the numbers with someone 5000' of the runway than a last minute go around.

 

[coloradobluesky]

It was busy. You may have to wait your turn. Don't get so concerned who goes first, just concentrate on two of you NOT GOING THE SAME PLACE AT THE SAME TIME!

 

[N801BH]

Did the Bo screw up anyone who was already in the pattern on downwind? Doesn't sound like it.

There is no rule against two aircraft on the runway at the same time. The Mooney was purd near a mile down the way when the Bo landed? How much room do you really need?

No tower, no foul.

Yup...

 

[JHW]

If anything is anti-social it is pilots who do a lot of maneuvering in the vicinity of an airport to get on a downwind when they could have simply made a straight-in and stayed out of everyone's way. I only see 2 mistakes in your description - a mooney pilot who can't land in 2500ft and a 3rd party who wants to play airport cop.

 

[Matthew]

I like rwys that at least have a turnout at the far end. We have a couple like that around here. It works great for landing long, pulling off the end of the rwy, and leaving a clear slot behind you for the next plane.

 

[Velocity173]

No tower, no minimum separation. Even if there was a tower, he could land while there is another aircraft on the runway. Ch3 of the 7110.65.

 

[Captain]

KHAF has no tower. There's no prohibition on two aircraft being on the runway at the same time. The general prohibition on not operating so close to another aircraft as to cause a problem.

There is absolutely NO reason however to be "in position and hold" at an untowered airport.
Pointless and incredibly unsafe sitting there with your blind side to the potential conflicting traffic.

No prohibition on doing straight-ins when there are planes in traffic. In fact, once you're close enough to be considered on final, the plane on final has the right of way. You can start a "Captain: Is this pilot jerk" thread later.

Frankly, while it caused kaniptions of the CFI in the right seat, I see nothing less safe with planting it on the numbers with someone 5000' of the runway than a last minute go around.

I don't see how this would qualify for a Jerk Thread. Did anyone do anything remotely 'Jerky'?

 

[N801BH]

No tower, no minimum separation. Even if there was a tower, he could land while there is another aircraft on the runway. Ch3 of the 7110.65.

Our tower here will allow two planes taking off side by side...

Landing aircrafts need 2500' separation

 

[mrtyler]

There is a minimum distance tower can clear a plane to land with another still on the runway. Both planes have to be pistons IIRC. A jet / turbine always gets the whole thing in order to be cleared to land.

Maybe you're talking about 3-10-3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION in https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/ATC/atc0310.html

I thought you said you were on CTAF though. Was there a tower involved in this or not?

Uncontrolled field (sorry, I meant to include that in my OP; thanks to flyingron for answering this also). Unsurprisingly the ATC publication doesn't seem to cover untowered fields .

There is absolutely NO reason however to be "in position and hold" at an untowered airport.
Pointless and incredibly unsafe sitting there with your blind side to the potential conflicting traffic.

I agree with this.

Frankly, while it caused kaniptions of the CFI in the right seat, I see nothing less safe with planting it on the numbers with someone 5000' of the runway than a last minute go around.

I agree with the spirit of this. However:

- shouldn't we always be prepared for a go around at any time?

- the "last minute" nature of this situation occurs only if the pilot landing #2 waits until the last minute to take corrective action

Did the Bo screw up anyone who was already in the pattern on downwind? Doesn't sound like it.

I don't think so.

There is no rule against two aircraft on the runway at the same time. The Mooney was purd near a mile down the way when the Bo landed? How much room do you really need?

No tower, no foul.

There's no prohibition on two aircraft being on the runway at the same time. The general prohibition on not operating so close to another aircraft as to cause a problem.

Perhaps I misunderstood something an instructor said long ago. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[mrtyler]

No tower, no minimum separation. Even if there was a tower, he could land while there is another aircraft on the runway. Ch3 of the 7110.65.

Ok cool, looks like this is the pub I linked in my last post so I guess I found the right resource. Thanks.

If anything is anti-social it is pilots who do a lot of maneuvering in the vicinity of an airport to get on a downwind when they could have simply made a straight-in and stayed out of everyone's way.

I agree with this.

I only see 2 mistakes in your description - a mooney pilot who can't land in 2500ft and a 3rd party who wants to play airport cop.

I saw something that I had questions about and I'm asking them of a group with a lot of experience. If that makes me an airport cop then you have the right to remain silent.

 

[Velocity173]

Our tower here will allow two planes taking off side by side...

Landing aircrafts need 2500' separation

They'll allow two seperate aircraft, non formation, to take off side by side? Not sure how they have the authorization for that. There are local rules that can reduce seperation from the 7110.65 but I haven't heard anything like that.

 

[N801BH]

They'll allow two seperate aircraft, non formation, to take off side by side? Not sure how they have the authorization for that. There are local rules that can reduce seperation from the 7110.65 but I haven't heard anything like that.

...

 

[hockeyrcks9901]

They'll allow two seperate aircraft, non formation, to take off side by side? Not sure how they have the authorization for that. There are local rules that can reduce seperation from the 7110.65 but I haven't heard anything like that.

...

I believe the post was talking about parallel runways...

 

[Henning]

Today featured some of that fine California "winter" weather that drives up the local cost of living. It was so nice that Half Moon Bay (HAF) wasn't buried in fog, so I popped over the hill for a few landings.

(There's no diagram in the A/FD so refer to https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5134444,-122.5011667,1639m/data=!3m1!1e3 if you like.)

As I taxied back to the approach end of 12, I listened to the suddenly very busy CTAF. A Sundowner was approaching from the east, eleven miles out. Someone else was overlying the airport at 2500 and then circling to enter downwind. Most significant to me as I pulled up and held short of 12 was a Mooney on a one and a half mile base-to-final and a Bonanza who had declared a few minutes ago that he was 5 miles out on a straight-in.

The Mooney reported he had me in sight and was landing. The Bonanaza reported that he had the Mooney in sight and was landing #2 behind him.

HAF has a pretty big runway (5000 x 150), but if you miss the midfield intersection you have to go all the way to the end unless you like taxiing through artichokes. I watched the Mooney miss the turn and roll on down to the end.

Meanwhile, the Bonanza did one or two anemic S-turns and then landed a few thousand feet behind the Mooney. The Mooney turned off at the end and announced that he was clear of the active. The Bonanaza, who made the midfield turn at around the same time as the Mooney turned off past the 30 numbers, announced that he was also clear.

I have some questions about this series of events.

1. In general, I feel that it's a little anti-social to just make a straight-in approach when there are numerous people hanging out in the pattern. Obviously different things make sense in different situations, but what do y'all think of the Bo's first decision in this case?

2. It's not uncommon to get a "line up and wait" behind a landing aircraft, but I've never seen a tower authorize someone to land when the previous landing aircraft had yet to clear the runway. Indeed, I've been asked to go around when the guy in front of me tarries a bit getting clear.

I'm a little ashamed to admit that I can't find the FAA regs about this. Closest I can find:



Can someone point me to anything more applicable?

3. Legality aside, how do you feel about the safety of the Bonanza's landing? If you're the Mooney pilot, are you upset with the Bo pilot?

Sounded like it went smooth and perfect with the minimum waste of time or energy.

 

[Velocity173]

I believe the post was talking about parallel runways...

Parallels at JAC?

 

[MAKG1]

If you're going to operate at HAF, be ready for cowboys, almost always straight in despite A/FD prohibitions, sometimes NORDO and/or heads down.

Except for the straight-ins, it's all legal, but rather stupid in the presence of other traffic.

But it's what HAF is like on a nice weekend day.

 

[MAKG1]

No prohibition on doing straight-ins when there are planes in traffic.

Not in general, but there is at this airport. Read the A/FD to avoid the potential 91.103 violation.

 

[N801BH]

Parallels at JAC?

No sir.......

Side by side maybe 50 feet apart.. Both pilots agreed ....

I don't know how the parallel runways came from.... I must have spoken incorrectly..

 

[Captain]

If you're going to operate at HAF, be ready for cowboys, almost always straight in despite A/FD prohibitions, sometimes NORDO and/or heads down.

Except for the straight-ins, it's all legal, but rather stupid in the presence of other traffic.

But it's what HAF is like on a nice weekend day.

A/FD prohibitions? I don't even own one of those and I land straight in each and every time it makes sense..

 

[Henning]

A/FD prohibitions? I don't even own one of those and I land straight in each and every time it makes sense..

I agree with straight in, however not having the information that the A/FD proscribes is a violation in and of itself. You don't need to have the A/FD, however you do need to know the information as it pertains to your flight.

 

[flyingron]

- shouldn't we always be prepared for a go around at any time?

Prepared yes, is it the best course of action when there's plenty of good runway ahead, perhaps not.

- the "last minute" nature of this situation occurs only if the pilot landing #2 waits until the last minute to take corrective action

Then you'd go around a lot at airports around here. People not getting their ass off the runway is a regular event. Fortunately the approach speed in my plane is real slow comparatively.

Rather than lumber back in the air and go around again in what may be decreasing conditons, etc... why should I be concerned about some jerk at the far end of a runway which my aircraft only requires 850' (even without a headwind?).

In fact, I can touch down, come to a complete stop, take off again and be more than 50' in the air before I get to him.

 

[flyingron]

Explain to me how making straight-ins at HAF has anything to do with 91.103 (even when the AF/D says you have to).

The notes in the AFD are primarily an local airport authority versus the pilot issue. Unless the FAA wants to pervert some regulation (in which they're more likely to use 91.13), just because some petty bureaucrat puts a restriction on his airport, doesn't mean the FAA will back him up.

 

[FastEddieB]

In general, I see two pilot types:

First is the "Plays well with others". Socially responsible. Learned that a standard traffic pattern is recommended, and so just does it that way. Like most social contracts, it works well when everyone plays by the same "rules", even if the "rules" are technically suggestions. But is always aware of...

The second, "Can't tell me what to do!" type. AIM is not regulatory! I'll conform to the letter of the law, suggested conventions be damned! And it will work since the Type 1 "sheeple" will be alert for those who just like to roll their own.

And it will all generally work out.

But every year there will be midairs that could have been avoided if everyone had followed recommended procedures. Recent one with an early turnout comes to mind.

My "Most Conservative Action" is to go with the flow and to follow recommended procedures. And I'll always be alert for the Type 2's.

And you know who you are.

 

[Captain]

I agree with straight in, however not having the information that the A/FD proscribes is a violation in and of itself. You don't need to have the A/FD, however you do need to know the information as it pertains to your flight.

I've never heard of a prohibition on straight-ins. When ATC clears me for the visual I have clearance from higher authority and if straight in makes sense then that's what's getting flown. I've never heard of any part 121 or 135 company providing A/FDs to pilots. BTW, I'd consider myself a type I by Fast Eddies standards.

 

[Henning]

I've never heard of a prohibition on straight-ins. When ATC clears me for the visual I have clearance from higher authority and if straight in makes sense then that's what's getting flown. I've never heard of any part 121 or 135 company providing A/FDs to pilots. BTW, I'd consider myself a type I by Fast Eddies standards.

There is none in general, however the A/FD is official information, and if it says "no straight in" and you don't know that, then you are in violation for not knowing. You are responsible to have all the information pertaining to your flight, whether it's in your head, on paper, or in a database.

 

[Captain]

Sorry, I'm going to have to think it's beyond the authority of an airport manager to outlaw straight in approaches. TPA, left or right patterns, noise abatement routing, fine. But to say no to a standard procedure? Too much.

What's next? Airport manager doesn't like planes flying in with the fuel selector set to the left tank? Gotta draw the line somewhere...

 

[JHW]

In general, I see two pilot types:

First is the "Plays well with others". Socially responsible. Learned that a standard traffic pattern is recommended, and so just does it that way. Like most social contracts, it works well when everyone plays by the same "rules", even if the "rules" are technically suggestions. But is always aware of...

The second, "Can't tell me what to do!" type. AIM is not regulatory! I'll conform to the letter of the law, suggested conventions be damned! And it will work since the Type 1 "sheeple" will be alert for those who just like to roll their own.

And it will all generally work out.

But every year there will be midairs that could have been avoided if everyone had followed recommended procedures. Recent one with an early turnout comes to mind.

My "Most Conservative Action" is to go with the flow and to follow recommended procedures. And I'll always be alert for the Type 2's.

And you know who you are.

There is a third type. The robot. S/he will adhere to his/her interpretation of the aim no matter what. They cant think for themself and adapt to changing circumstances. Contorting the flight path from a perfect straight-in to get to a downwind entry is a classic example.

 

[hockeyrcks9901]

Parallels at JAC?

No sir.......

Side by side maybe 50 feet apart.. Both pilots agreed ....

I don't know how the parallel runways came from.... I must have spoken incorrectly..

Was posting from my phone and didn't see any airport identifier so I just assumed...

You know what they say about assumptions...

 

[FastEddieB]

There is a third type. The robot. S/he will adhere to his/her interpretation of the aim no matter what. They cant think for themself and adapt to changing circumstances. Contorting the flight path from a perfect straight-in to get to a downwind entry is a classic example.

Ground too old to go over yet again, but I'm not sure "robotic" is quite the right term for a pilot who has had the rationale of a overfly followed by a traffic pattern explained to him or her and has seen the benefits involved.

And one does not have to rely solely on the AIM.

There's also this:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC90-66A.pdf

But like I said, old ground and the Type 2's will do whatever they choose anyway.

 

[MAKG1]

No, what's next is that the airport turns off the lights because too many ***holes believe noise abatement procedures are beneath them.

Captain, there are no 121 ops at that airport, and I really doubt there is much if any 135. Commercial ops generally go to San Carlos where there are actual commercial reasons to go.