Pattern Etiquette

[bbchien]

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-4of7.pdf

Look on page 7-3 at the bottom left column and top of the right column. The base can be 1/2 to ONE WHOLE MILE out. That's a long ways out for a lot of aircraft, so the guy on the impossibly long downwind may not be the one you want to "cut in front".

Remember, students need a long final.

 

[Palmpilot]

It sounds to me like you're suggesting an aircraft flying a straight-in instrument approach in VMC is obligated to enter the pattern and fly it, and I know of no basis in the FAR's for that statement. The legal fact is that the IFR airplane on a straight-in final has right of way over the VFR airplane on downwind, and the VFR airplane on downwind must act accordingly.

For the full legal story on this, see Administrator v. Fekete, and note that the FAA's emergency revocation of Mr. Fekete's certificates was sustained all the way to the NTSB.

Wow, that's quite a case!

Aside from the fact that a CFI with that much experience was ignorant of the rule, I'm stunned by his willingness to continue flying into near collisions as a way of showing others what he thought was the error of their ways!

Personally, as matter of personal survival, I regard the right of way rules as follows:

1. When I don't have the right of way, the rules tell me that I must yield; and

2. When I do have the right of way, I do not regard the rules as a reason for me to allow a collision hazard to develop!

BTW, I was impressed by the fact that the NTSB did not dismiss the case based on the fact that the pro-se respondent made procedural errors in the appeal process, but instead went ahead and considered the appeal on its merits.

 

[ajstoner21]

I didn't mean to imply one set of operating rules had priority over the other. I am in no way disagreeing with you. But, Yes, all aicraft must fit in with the other. IFR with VFR and vice versa.

All I meant was, VFR and IFR are required to see and avoid. Now, What defines final approach was brought up. Turning "in front of" and airplane on a "10 mile final" is not as serious as a plane on a 1 mile or less final.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's not what I'm suggesting. I think I'm saying the same thing that nosehair said which is that an IFR approach arrival into an airport operating under VFR conditions has the same responsibility to behave themselves according the the rules that govern VFR traffic. Of course there's no requirement to fly a pattern for anyone. As I hope we all know, you can legally fly a 10 final if you want but doing on an IFR approach, practice or otherwise, doesn't obviate your responsibility to see and avoid and yield right of way to other aircraft, VFR or on an IFR clearance, according to 91.113.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is how, absent an emergency, an airplane established on that "10 final" would ever be obligated to yield right of way to another airplane flying the "standard" traffic pattern. If someone is 10 miles out when you turn a typical light plane final (maybe 3/4 mile out or so), there's no conflict, so there's no right of way issue.

I would also suggest that some of our pilot "responsibilities" are not described in the FAR/AIM and hence, my references to "making nice." People flying a 5 mile final in a 172 into a crowded pattern (regardless of what they're practicing) without breaking it off well outside the existing pattern aircraft is the aviation equivalent of "cutting in line."

You're entitled to your opinion on that, but the FAA has clearly stated in the regulations and the case law that they believe otherwise, and it doesn't matter what sort of airplane is flying the straight-in, be it 172 or bizjet or even a 737.

 

[poadeleted20]

A fundamental issue here is where exactly does the final approach start. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that it is defined by a normally flown traffic pattern. Anything farther out aligned with the runway should be considered straight in for RWY XY. Unless you are flying a SR-71, final begins a lot closer than 10 miles.

Read the Boardman and Fekete cases again. When it comes to right of way, there is no outer limit to how far you can be to be considered established on final, but to fly a straight-in, you must established on final at least 2-3 miles out.

Now, that doesn't mean an airplane on downwind must extend to follow a plane on a 25-mile final, but it does mean if a plane on downwind turns in front of a plane established on final, it better not be forcing the plane already on final to go around.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is plenty of precedence to confirm that a normal pattern size is not much greater than 1 or, at most, 1/1/2 miles.

Read Boardman (and the cited precedents) again -- for the purposes of this discussion, the traffic pattern area is considered to be 2-3 miles from the airport.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think I might start announcing I'm on final about 20 NM out and then assume I have the right of way.
Please note: --->>>

Not sure why you need the 's, because once established on final, even at 20 miles out you do have right of way.

I think one problem here is that some folks think having right of way means nobody is allowed to turn in front of you, and that's not so. All it means is that nobody is allowed to force you to alter your approach. Thus, if you're 20 miles out, someone on downwind can certainly turn in front of you legally, since they will be parked and tied down before you get to the threshold. Where you are breaking the rules is when you do what Fekete did -- turn in front of a plane on final forcing that plane to go around. If you won't force that plane established on final to alter its approach, there's no right of way issue to be resolved.

 

[Gary F]

Read the Boardman and Fekete cases again. When it comes to right of way, there is no outer limit to how far you can be to be considered established on final, but to fly a straight-in, you must established on final at least 2-3 miles out.

Now, that doesn't mean an airplane on downwind must extend to follow a plane on a 25-mile final, but it does mean if a plane on downwind turns in front of a plane established on final, it better not be forcing the plane already on final to go around.

I regularly fly from KATW to KSAW 130 nm away. I am nearly aligned with RWY 1 as soon as I take off. When am I considered to be on final if I fly at pattern altitude? By this reasoning I can call 30 to 40 nm out and declare I'm on final.

As per AIM Pilot Controller glossary:
Final Approach Fix. The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final approach segment.....

Why would it extend out any further for VFR aircraft?

I am fairly certain our tower will has allowed aircraft turn downwind to base when somebody has already crossed the FAF on a practice instrument approach. The guy in the court case had a habit of cutting off other aircraft and was really close to them when he did.

 

[poadeleted20]

I regularly fly from KATW to KSAW 130 nm away. I am nearly aligned with RWY 1 as soon as I take off. When am I considered to be on final if I fly at pattern altitude? By this reasoning I can call 30 to 40 nm out and declare I'm on final.

You could indeed, but I don't see what difference that would make to a pilot about to turn base a mile from the airport.

As per AIM Pilot Controller glossary:
Final Approach Fix. The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final approach segment.....

Why would it extend out any further for VFR aircraft?

For IFR aircraft, there's a difference between being on the final approach course and being on the final segment of an approach, but that's an issue of instrument approach procedures. For the purpose of this "right of way" discussion, you can be "established on final" 50 miles out either IFR or VFR.

I am fairly certain our tower will has allowed aircraft turn downwind to base when somebody has already crossed the FAF on a practice instrument approach.

When it's a tower-controlled airport, all of this discussion goes pretty much out the window -- tower provides the sequence, and you follow the plane the tower tells you to follow, or turn in when tower tells you to turn in.

The guy in the court case had a habit of cutting off other aircraft and was really close to them when he did.

Exactly. If you're not going to be close to them or force them to alter your approach, you can turn in front of them, and there's no right-of-way issue. 91.113(g) only comes into play when you do something like Mr. Fekete did, not when you turn in front of a plane 20 miles out.

 

[gismo]

Not sure why you need the 's, because once established on final, even at 20 miles out you do have right of way.

I think one problem here is that some folks think having right of way means nobody is allowed to turn in front of you, and that's not so. All it means is that nobody is allowed to force you to alter your approach. Thus, if you're 20 miles out, someone on downwind can certainly turn in front of you legally, since they will be parked and tied down before you get to the threshold. Where you are breaking the rules is when you do what Fekete did -- turn in front of a plane on final forcing that plane to go around. If you won't force that plane established on final to alter its approach, there's no right of way issue to be resolved.

I think the part you're missing (or at least ignoring somewhat) is that a fair number of pilots believe that any other pilot announcing that he's on final is effectively telling anyone else in the pattern "Here I come, get out of my way" regardless of the announced distance from the airport or any intention of said pilot to "fit in". IME, this kind of thinking is usually associated with a similarly incorrect notion that the only way to enter a traffic patter is the AIM recommended 45 angle into downwind with the "thinker" immediately offended the moment an announcement of "on final" hits their ears.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the part you're missing (or at least ignoring somewhat) is that a fair number of pilots believe that any other pilot announcing that he's on final is effectively telling anyone else in the pattern "Here I come, get out of my way" regardless of the announced distance from the airport or any intention of said pilot to "fit in".

Well, I thought I had addressed that, but...

IME, this kind of thinking is usually associated with a similarly incorrect notion that the only way to enter a traffic patter is the AIM recommended 45 angle into downwind with the "thinker" immediately offended the moment an announcement of "on final" hits their ears.

...I think you've hit on a large part of the problem.

 

[ajstoner21]

Not sure why you need the 's, because once established on final, even at 20 miles out you do have right of way.

I think one problem here is that some folks think having right of way means nobody is allowed to turn in front of you, and that's not so. All it means is that nobody is allowed to force you to alter your approach. Thus, if you're 20 miles out, someone on downwind can certainly turn in front of you legally, since they will be parked and tied down before you get to the threshold. Where you are breaking the rules is when you do what Fekete did -- turn in front of a plane on final forcing that plane to go around. If you won't force that plane established on final to alter its approach, there's no right of way issue to be resolved.

Well Said Ron. I think that made something "click" for me.

 

[Gary F]

For IFR aircraft, there's a difference between being on the final approach course and being on the final segment of an approach, but that's an issue of instrument approach procedures. For the purpose of this "right of way" discussion, you can be "established on final" 50 miles out either IFR or VFR.

I don't think so. Can you show where the FAA has defined final approach so loosely? If this is the case they did a crummy job.
I'll list the definition of FAF again:
Final Approach Fix. The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final approach segment.....

I do not see how somebody 10 or more miles out can realistically be considered to be on final approach. The only practical result of declaring a 10 mile final is to confuse and scare student pilots like the one who started this thread. If a Citation pilot declares he is on a 20 mile final and somebody calls downwind to base after that, can that pilot be subject to enforcement action if the Citation decides it is necessary to slow down from 180 to 140 kts even if the little guy if 12 miles ahead? I hope not.

When it's a tower-controlled airport, all of this discussion goes pretty much out the window -- tower provides the sequence, and you follow the plane the tower tells you to follow, or turn in when tower tells you to turn in.

I understand that. The point I am trying to make is that what a tower controller considers reasonable will also likely be reasonable at a non-towered airport.

I love this forum. If I am wrong, I would rather learn it here than at a FAA administrative hearing.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't think so. Can you show where the FAA has defined final approach so loosely?

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary

FINAL- Commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with a landing area.

FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all without regard to distance.

 

[Gary F]

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary

FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all without regard to distance.

Final Approach Fix. The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final approach segment...

I am not convinced that being on the final approach course is the same as being on final approach, at least in terms of right of way or other practical applications of FARs. I still believe that final approach begins on the final approach course at the FAF, at least that's what the P/C glossary definition of FAF indicates. Are we beating a dead horse yet?

 

[Everskyward]

I am not convinced that being on the final approach course is the same as being on final approach, at least in terms of right of way or other practical applications of FARs. I still believe that final approach begins on the final approach course at the FAF, at least that's what the P/C glossary definition of FAF indicates. Are we beating a dead horse yet?

I'm not sure why you think "final" starts at the FAF which is a location on an IFR approach. "Final" can also be used as a VFR term.

FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all without regard to distance.

The word "or" would indicate to me that it could be an extended runway centerline not associated with an IFR approach.

In any case, look at this approach. Where would you say "final" starts?

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1013/06741I26.PDF

 

[LearDriver]

 

[Gary F]

Beating a dead horse? Probably. We are also splitting hairs. The problem is that I'm not done yet but I will try to hold off on a response (at least for now) since somebody has had enough.

 

[Palmpilot]

I love this forum. If I am wrong, I would rather learn it here than at a FAA administrative hearing.

That is a great observation!

 

[Jim Logajan]

§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.
(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right;

Also applicable to Class E, D, and C airports. If not read carefully, one could read the regulation above as disallowing straight-in approaches to non-towered fields. It doesn't actually require entry to a standard pattern, but if you need to turn at all to get onto final approach, the rule seems to require you to enter the pattern. But it's got so much room for interpretation and misinterpretation that it isn't surprising the subject is a perennial one.

An anal literal reading would imply that if you turn too soon onto final from base, you'd be in violation if you tried to correct and join the runway center line by turning to the right, however slight that turn would be! As I see it, the regulation as written is unable to properly stand on its own because it attempts to rely on "common knowledge" among the regulated community on what it is attempting to address. Someone new to the regulations and flying would be right to read it and say "What the bloody hell does this mean!??"

 

[dmccormack]

Also applicable to Class E, D, and C airports. If not read carefully, one could read the regulation above as disallowing straight-in approaches to non-towered fields. It doesn't actually require entry to a standard pattern, but if you need to turn at all to get onto final approach, the rule seems to require you to enter the pattern. But it's got so much room for interpretation and misinterpretation that it isn't surprising the subject is a perennial one.

An anal literal reading would imply that if you turn too soon onto final from base, you'd be in violation if you tried to correct and join the runway center line by turning to the right, however slight that turn would be! As I see it, the regulation as written is unable to properly stand on its own because it attempts to rely on "common knowledge" among the regulated community on what it is attempting to address. Someone new to the regulations and flying would be right to read it and say "What the bloody hell does this mean!??"

When I was "new to the regualtions and flying" I didn't get all wadded up over imprecise or ambiguous language.

I still don't.

I use the "What will stand in the cold light of reason 3 weeks after the fact" approach.

If a Falcon Jet is on a 5 mile final for a runway and I'm on downwind in a 65 knot airplane -- guess what?

I'm extending my downwind.

If a C150 is on a 5 mile final, I'm probably going to do a 180, land, taxi off, and wiping oil from the cowling by the time he touches down.

 

[EdFred]

Also applicable to Class E, D, and C airports. If not read carefully, one could read the regulation above as disallowing straight-in approaches to non-towered fields. It doesn't actually require entry to a standard pattern, but if you need to turn at all to get onto final approach, the rule seems to require you to enter the pattern. But it's got so much room for interpretation and misinterpretation that it isn't surprising the subject is a perennial one.

An anal literal reading would imply that if you turn too soon onto final from base, you'd be in violation if you tried to correct and join the runway center line by turning to the right, however slight that turn would be! As I see it, the regulation as written is unable to properly stand on its own because it attempts to rely on "common knowledge" among the regulated community on what it is attempting to address. Someone new to the regulations and flying would be right to read it and say "What the bloody hell does this mean!??"

This also contradicts the AIM 45° downwind entry. But this does NOT apply to C and D airports where the tower instructs you on what pattern to fly. It does not prohibit straight ins. If you fly straight in there are no turns to be made.

 

[Palmpilot]

When I was still a pretty new pilot, I remember a turboprop airliner calling a seven mile final at Arcata, CA, just as I was about to turn base. I guessed he was far enough away, so I went ahead and made (and announced) my base turn. I must have guessed right because I didn't hear any complaints, and saw the airliner rolling out on final as I was trundling the opposite way down the taxiway.

 

[poadeleted20]

FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all without regard to distance.

Final Approach Fix. The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final approach segment...

I am not convinced that being on the final approach course is the same as being on final approach, at least in terms of right of way or other practical applications of FARs.

Then read the case law. In any event, the final approach segment is not the same as the final approach course, and that is the significant distinction you seem not to have understood so far. I've discussed this in another context with someone who teaches in a controller training program and has a couple of decades of experience as a controller, and he's done "vectors to final" joining the final approach course as much as 90 miles out!

 

[poadeleted20]

Also applicable to Class E, D, and C airports. If not read carefully, one could read the regulation above as disallowing straight-in approaches to non-towered fields.

Only if one has not read Boardman, cited above, which makes clear that they are allowed as long as you join the final outside the traffic pattern area, which is defined by exclusion in that case and several cases cited in it as 2-3 miles out.

 

[EdFred]

Then read the case law. In any event, the final approach segment is not the same as the final approach course, and that is the significant distinction you seem not to have understood so far. I've discussed this in another context with someone who teaches in a controller training program and has a couple of decades of experience as a controller, and he's done "vectors to final" joining the final approach course as much as 90 miles out!

To me the FAC is undefined as to the length of it. Analagous to a line in geometry, where the segment has a finite length.

 

[Gary F]

Then read the case law. In any event, the final approach segment is not the same as the final approach course, and that is the significant distinction you seem not to have understood so far.[/FONT][/SIZE]

I am arguing that the final approach segment defines final approach better than simply being on the final approach course however far from the destination. I could not find a FAA definition for final approach other than the indirect reference to it in the definition of final approach fix. How do you explain the reference to final approach in context of the definition of final approach fix from the pilot controller glossary in the AIM? It appears to be unambiguous. Please list some references for aviation case law as it applies to the definition of final approach.

Conceptually I prefer to think of final approach as that phase of flight where the airplane is on the final approach course configured for landing (gear down and at least partial flaps, final approach checklist complete) at a more or less constant speed and rate of descent. This normally begins at or shortly before the final approach fix on an instrument approach and typically less than 5 miles from the runway threshold for a VFR approach. Prior to that is the enroute descent phase of flight if you are on the final approach course. Defining final approach as being headed toward the destination airport anywhere on the final approach course is much less useful in my opinion.

 

[Keith Lane]

With a Garmin 430W couldn't you start down the glideslope from 100 miles out?

 

[Gary F]

With a Garmin 430W couldn't you start down the glideslope from 100 miles out?

Yep. I might try it next time I fly back from Appleton. We could have a contest for the longest "final approach". That is why I think final begins at or inside of the FAF.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Conceptually I prefer to think of final approach as that phase of flight where the airplane is on the final approach course configured for landing (gear down and at least partial flaps, final approach checklist complete) at a more or less constant speed and rate of descent. This normally begins at or shortly before the final approach fix on an instrument approach and typically less than 5 miles from the runway threshold for a VFR approach. Prior to that is the enroute descent phase of flight if you are on the final approach course. Defining final approach as being headed toward the destination airport anywhere on the final approach course is much less useful in my opinion.

Wow.

My gear is always down.

I don't have flaps.

Don't do a final approch checklist. (What's to check?)

Speed down final is about the same as downwind.

About all that changes from pulling back on the power on downwind to the flare is the direction I am pointing. So I have to go with the 'final approach course'.

And, if anyone cares, I have no idea where a "final approch fix" would be. 5 miles away would put me into Canada (depending on the runway) - and that's a 'no fly zone' for me.

Oh, and at ONZ I never make a 45 into the downwind - not enough room between the downwind (which they ask you to make over the water) and Canada.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

An anal literal reading would imply that if you turn too soon onto final from base, you'd be in violation if you tried to correct and join the runway center line by turning to the right, however slight that turn would be! As I see it, the regulation as written is unable to properly stand on its own because it attempts to rely on "common knowledge" among the regulated community on what it is attempting to address. Someone new to the regulations and flying would be right to read it and say "What the bloody hell does this mean!??"

A literal reading would allow a right hand pattern if you make a 270 to the left instead of a 90 to the right at each corner.

 

[poadeleted20]

To me the FAC is undefined as to the length of it. Analagous to a line in geometry, where the segment has a finite length.

Eggs-ackly.

 

[poadeleted20]

With a Garmin 430W couldn't you start down the glideslope from 100 miles out?

Only in the Space Shuttle.

Seriously, I'm not sure whether there's a limit on how far out you can get vertical guidance on the 400W/500W-series Garmins.

 

[dmccormack]

Seriously, I'm not sure whether there's a limit on how far out you can get vertical guidance on the 400W/500W-series Garmins.

I've ignored the Vertical Profile Guidance (except on Approaches), but I think I've noticed it suggesting a descent rate of 5 FPM 50 miles out, IIRC...

 

[poadeleted20]

I am arguing that the final approach segment defines final approach better than simply being on the final approach course however far from the destination. I could not find a FAA definition for final approach other than the indirect reference to it in the definition of final approach fix. How do you explain the reference to final approach in context of the definition of final approach fix from the pilot controller glossary in the AIM? It appears to be unambiguous.

One last time -- the term "final approach fix" applies only to SIAP's, not right of way rules.

Please list some references for aviation case law as it applies to the definition of final approach.

Already did -- read Boardman, above.

Conceptually I prefer to think of final approach as that phase of flight where the airplane is on the final approach course configured for landing (gear down and at least partial flaps, final approach checklist complete) at a more or less constant speed and rate of descent.

That may be your preference, but in this context, as stated in the regs, the AC's, the AIM, and the case law, it isn't the FAA's.

In any event, if someone is on final outside the FAF, someone on downwind about to turn base is hardly likely to need to extend behind the plane on final unless that someone on downwind is flying something very big, heavy, and fast, so the question of whetner "final" begins for 91.113(g) purposes at the FAF or farther just doesn't much matter (unless it takes you more than two minutes to get from turning base to clearing the runway, in which case you're probably flying too big a pattern).

 

[poadeleted20]

I've ignored the Vertical Profile Guidance (except on Approaches), but I think I've noticed it suggesting a descent rate of 5 FPM 50 miles out, IIRC...

I thought we were discussing the vertical steering you get with the LNAV+V, LNAV/VNAV, and LPV modes, i.e., the ones that drive the GS needle on your CDI/HSI that you get only with the WAAS units.

 

[Gary F]

One last time -- the term "final approach fix" applies only to SIAP's, not right of way rules.

Already did -- read Boardman, above.

That may be your preference, but in this context, as stated in the regs, the AC's, the AIM, and the case law, it isn't the FAA's.

In any event, if someone is on final outside the FAF, someone on downwind about to turn base is hardly likely to need to extend behind the plane on final unless that someone on downwind is flying something very big, heavy, and fast, so the question of whetner "final" begins for 91.113(g) purposes at the FAF or farther just doesn't much matter (unless it takes you more than two minutes to get from turning base to clearing the runway, in which case you're probably flying too big a pattern).

Fine, please give your (or your interpretation of the FAA regs) definition of final approach. References to the FARs would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[poadeleted20]

Fine, please give your (or your interpretation of the FAA regs) definition of final approach. References to the FARs would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

My definition or interpretation doesn't matter, but as it pertains to 91.113(g), I've already given you the FAA's take, which is the only one that does matter. Read Fekete and Boardman!

 

[nosehair]

A literal reading would allow a right hand pattern if you make a 270 to the left instead of a 90 to the right at each corner.

Oooo! I love this one! ..and probably would hold up in court with a good lawyer. It is an excellent example of how the literal reading of our FARs, which were created and worded back in a time, long, long ago, when "common sense" applied to all the wording of such traffic regulations.

"That depends on what the definition of 'is', is" ~ Famous Quote

 

[dmccormack]

I thought we were discussing the vertical steering you get with the LNAV+V, LNAV/VNAV, and LPV modes, i.e., the ones that drive the GS needle on your CDI/HSI that you get only with the WAAS units.

There is also a Vertical Descent profile that you set up for your airplane. After that it starts suggesting when you should start down and at what rate to your destination.