Pattern Etiquette

[TedR3]

I was making my first unsupervised solo today. Because of visibility, I was forced to just stay in the pattern.

Everything went great but I had a situation arise where I was unsure what to do.

Before I took the runway on one lap, a Skylane announced it was leaving a holding pattern for a 10 mile final for a practice instrument approach. I made my crosswind call, and as I turned downwind the Skylane announced a 5 mile final (I think). When I made my downwind call, the Skylane responded that he was No. 2 to land and looking for me.

I made my base and final calls, and while I was on short final, he announced going around.

Two questions, who has the legal right of way here? And even if I did, should I have done a 360 on the downwind to allow the Skylane to land?

As I read the regs., an aircraft on final generally has the right of way, but if 2 aircraft are approaching the airport, the aircraft at lower altitude has the right of way. I would interpret that to mean an aircraft on downwind at pattern altitude has right of way over an aircraft on 5 mile final.

Nonetheless, I have feeling that the “right” thing to do would have been to do a 360 or depart the pattern and return on the 45 to allow the Skylane to complete its approach.

 

[nosehair]

When I made my downwind call, the Skylane responded that he was No. 2 to land and looking for me.

I made my base and final calls, and while I was on short final, he announced going around.

You did the right thing. Normally, a 360 on downwind isn't a good thing to do, because somebody might be behind you.

The instrument pilot making the instrument approach has the responsibility to fit into the vfr traffic. Your calls, and his statement that he was #2 looking for you was the normal procedure. He made the go-around because he (not you) misjudged his position on final behind you.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The guy on final had the "right of way" but he announced his intention to go behind you - so no real problem there.

When he went around - was it because he was too close, or because he was practicing and IFR approach / miss?

Personally, I probably would have extended my downwind to let him go first - it's hard to get hit by some one in front of you.

But in any case, stuff like this happens. Just keep your eyes open and don't sweat it.

 

[ScottM]

The guy on final had the "right of way" but he announced his intention to go behind you - so no real problem there.

When he went around - was it because he was too close, or because he was practicing and IFR approach / miss?

Personally, I probably would have extended my downwind to let him go first - it's hard to get hit by some one in front of you.

But in any case, stuff like this happens. Just keep your eyes open and don't sweat it.

I know when I hear student pilots in the pattern when I am shooting approaches I will do what I can to keep them in my sight, even letting them ahead of me and going around.

I will also, if the frequency is not congested, let them know that I will go around if it just does not work.

 

[gismo]

Before I took the runway on one lap, a Skylane announced it was leaving a holding pattern for a 10 mile final for a practice instrument approach. I made my crosswind call, and as I turned downwind the Skylane announced a 5 mile final (I think). When I made my downwind call, the Skylane responded that he was No. 2 to land and looking for me.

I made my base and final calls, and while I was on short final, he announced going around.

Two questions, who has the legal right of way here? And even if I did, should I have done a 360 on the downwind to allow the Skylane to land?

As I read the regs., an aircraft on final generally has the right of way, but if 2 aircraft are approaching the airport, the aircraft at lower altitude has the right of way. I would interpret that to mean an aircraft on downwind at pattern altitude has right of way over an aircraft on 5 mile final.

Nonetheless, I have feeling that the “right” thing to do would have been to do a 360 or depart the pattern and return on the 45 to allow the Skylane to complete its approach.

It's true that an aircraft on final has the "right of way" over one on downwind but that doesn't mean the one on downwind has to land behind the one on final, just that he shouldn't interfere with the one on final. In any case if you're on downwind and want to get behind the plane on final just extend the downwind until you pass each other. Also, WRT right of way, an aircraft that's 5 miles from the runway isn't really considered to be "on final" so in that situation the relative altitudes determine who has the right of way.

In this specific instance, it would have been a good idea to transmit a precise position report when the Skylane announced that he was "looking" for you, e.g. "Skyhawk 34Charile just turned downwind and is abeam the departure end of one five". That not only lets the other pilot know where to look, it also lets him know you're aware that he's out there. And if you were abeam the departure end of a typical GA runway (3000-4000 ft) you've only got about 2 nm to go before crossing the threshold for landing and thus should easily be out of the way by the time a plane 5 nm out gets to the runway unless that plane is significantly faster than yours. But the radio is the best means to work this out.

 

[Areeda]

Yep, you did just fine for your first unsupervised solo. The 182 did fine and I'm sure everybody is happy.

As Lance said the only thing better would have been a bit more communication and coordination but only a bit better.

Joe

 

[CJones]

There is a very good chance that the other guy was 'going around' due to practicing the missed approach. Usually it is announced as "going missed", but I'm not the terminology police.

 

[Sac Arrow]

There is a very good chance that the other guy was 'going around' due to practicing the missed approach. Usually it is announced as "going missed", but I'm not the terminology police.

Well, except that if his intentions are to remain in visual contact with the field and continue to land, it isn't going missed because he isn't going to do another approach.

 

[ajstoner21]

I agree with what nosehair said.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was making my first unsupervised solo today. Because of visibility, I was forced to just stay in the pattern.

Everything went great but I had a situation arise where I was unsure what to do.

Before I took the runway on one lap, a Skylane announced it was leaving a holding pattern for a 10 mile final for a practice instrument approach. I made my crosswind call, and as I turned downwind the Skylane announced a 5 mile final (I think). When I made my downwind call, the Skylane responded that he was No. 2 to land and looking for me.

I made my base and final calls, and while I was on short final, he announced going around.

All's well that ends well.

Two questions, who has the legal right of way here?

Generally speaking, the aircraft on final.

And even if I did, should I have done a 360 on the downwind to allow the Skylane to land?

If continuing your approach would case the Skylane to go around, then you should have given way. That could mean a 360 on downwind, although that would probably create far more space than needed, and might confuse anyone in the patern behind you. Were I in that situation, I'd probably just extend downwind to follow the Skylane.

As I read the regs., an aircraft on final generally has the right of way, but if 2 aircraft are approaching the airport, the aircraft at lower altitude has the right of way. I would interpret that to mean an aircraft on downwind at pattern altitude has right of way over an aircraft on 5 mile final.

Typically, an aircraft on 5-mile final is going to be about 1500 AGL, and in that sense, you would appear to have right of way. However, the FAA and NTSB have in several cases on record, said that the way to interpret the rule is that if the plane on final would be forced to alter its approach or go around if the plane in the pattern turned in front of it, the plane in the pattern must yield to the plane on straight-in.

Nonetheless, I have feeling that the “right” thing to do would have been to do a 360 or depart the pattern and return on the 45 to allow the Skylane to complete its approach.

Either of those would work, but just extending to follow would probably work better. If that extension would put you more than 2-3 miles on final, you probably had room to turn in front of the Skylane and complete your landing without interfering with its approach. If you couldn't do that, you probably wouldn't have to extend more than a mile or two to get behind it.

 

[poadeleted20]

The instrument pilot making the instrument approach has the responsibility to fit into the vfr traffic.

That statement is contrary to 91.113(g), so where do you get that as being law?

 

[gismo]

That statement is contrary to 91.113(g), so where do you get that as being law?

Wishful thinking?

 

[CJones]

Well, except that if his intentions are to remain in visual contact with the field and continue to land, it isn't going missed because he isn't going to do another approach.

Very true. I'm just saying that it is a possibility that he was going 'missed' and announced going 'around'. Not that that's actually what happened. I'm not THAT good of a Monday morning QB.

 

[PittsDriver]

That statement is contrary to 91.113(g), so where do you get that as being law?

How do you figure that it's contrary? Are you suggesting that someone on an IFR approach has no responsibility for fitting in with VFR traffic already there on approach? That's all I read in nosehair's comment.

An IFR arrival to an airport that's VFR has no priority over VFR aircraft operating there and must exercise the responsibility to know where that traffic is and deconflict as required by 91.113(g).

 

[EppyGA]

How do you figure that it's contrary? Are you suggesting that someone on an IFR approach has no responsibility for fitting in with VFR traffic already there on approach? That's all I read in nosehair's comment.

An IFR arrival to an airport that's VFR has no priority over VFR aircraft operating there and must exercise the responsibility to know where that traffic is and deconflict as required by 91.113(g).

I'm just curious. If its VFR and the guy is not doing a practice approach wouldn't we probably expect that he would more than likely cancel his clearance at some point and continue in VFR?

 

[TedR3]

Thanks to everyone for the constructive replies.

There is a very good chance that the other guy was 'going around' due to practicing the missed approach. Usually it is announced as "going missed", but I'm not the terminology police.

He went around - flew the pattern and landed. I made sure to wait for him before taking the runway again.

You can't really extend the downwind too much on runway 24 at KLOM or you'll be in Willow Grove's Class D. If I were really thinking ahead I probably would have extended the departure leg a little bit. I'm sure my sense of pattern timing will get better as times goes on.

Thanks again.

 

[ajstoner21]

I haven't taken the time yet to look up 91.113(g) but, simple fact is, an aircraft operating under IFR in VFR conditions is equally responsible to see and avoid. That most definitely means fitting in with VFR traffic (whether they need to tell ATC of a traffic avoidance maneuver or not).

How that plays in the scenario of an IFR aircraft on a straight in, and a VFR aircraft on downwind, I don't know. I would agree that it would be courteous of the VFR aircraft to extend down wind, and make sure folks behind him in the pattern follow suit.

 

[PittsDriver]

I'm just curious. If its VFR and the guy is not doing a practice approach wouldn't we probably expect that he would more than likely cancel his clearance at some point and continue in VFR?

Probably, but either way, my point was that if the airport is VFR that it's everybody's responsibility to see each other and make nice and that is not contrary to 91.113(g).

There might be a reason for the a pilot on an actual (vs. practice) instrument approach to not cancel until they're on the ground but that doesn't obviate the need for them to enter a VFR environment and behave like VFR traffic in the pattern. If you don't cancel your clearance, you'll most likely get "radar services terminated - cancel on this freq or on the ground." at some point before you're "in the pattern" anyway. You should be on the CTAF by no later than a few miles out anyway.

 

[gismo]

Thanks to everyone for the constructive replies.



He went around - flew the pattern and landed. I made sure to wait for him before taking the runway again.

You can't really extend the downwind too much on runway 24 at KLOM or you'll be in Willow Grove's Class D. If I were really thinking ahead I probably would have extended the departure leg a little bit. I'm sure my sense of pattern timing will get better as times goes on.

Thanks again.

Although it's likely contrary to what your CFI has taught you, there's no reason you can't widen out on the downwind as an alternative to extending when there's no room for that. There's also a black knob somewhere near the panel that offers the ability to "extend" the time required to complete your downwind. Nothing says you can't slow to 1.3 Vso early in the pattern.

 

[Witmo]

...When I made my downwind call, the Skylane responded that he was No. 2 to land and looking for me.

I made my base and final calls, and while I was on short final, he announced going around.

...

I would not have turned base or final in front of someone I know is a potential conflict without knowing exactly where the aircraft on the straight-in was or hearing that he had me in sight. I'm not a trusting soul at heart and too many times have heard of aircraft colliding on short final even though both pilots were "looking."

 

[zaitcev]

All kinds of things happen in the pattern, you get used to it (saying this as a fellow student, BTW). One day I was almost exactly in your position, and extended the downwind to accomodate someone who did a straight-in approach (IIRC it was a Bonanza or Mooney -- one of those retracts). When I turned base, an experimental who was behind me on downwind, turned in simultaneously and cut me off. The fast single landed way ahead of us, the ex guy second, and I had to make a go-around with a side-step, because I was afraid to get too slow and was still faster.

I fly a Cherokee and noticed that 172s are always way faster in pattern. If we do t/gs, they will eventually sit on my tail and ask to turn inside me on crosswind. They also tend to fly wider, because they can afford it if engine quits, and they still turn around the patch quicker than me.

 

[ajstoner21]

Turning from base to final is kind of high risk anyway. If you have two pilots in the pattern, and one person flys a 747 pattern, and a nother flys a traditional cessna type pattern, you'll find they may be spaced just fine on downwind, and may collide at the turn to final due to their different sized patterns.

So, I'd pay extra attention turning final anyway, known traffic or not.

 

[leedarrow]

Typically, an aircraft on 5-mile final is going to be about 1500 AGL, and in that sense, you would appear to have right of way. However, the FAA and NTSB have in several cases on record, said that the way to interpret the rule is that if the plane on final would be forced to alter its approach or go around if the plane in the pattern turned in front of it, the plane in the pattern must yield to the plane on straight-in.

Any chance you could explain this? I'm certainly not trying to tell you you're wrong, I just don't get it. What's the point of documenting the proper procedure for entering the traffic pattern in the AIM if someone can just say "screw it, I'm not going all the way over there to enter on the 45, I'm just going straight in", and then have the others in the pattern have to work around you. My understanding of the straight in is that it's not preferred, but ok as long as it's not affecting the others already in the pattern. Maybe I'm missing a concept here because I've had no IFR training.

 

[ajstoner21]

A straight in approach is perfectly legit. Almost ALL instrument approaches are straight in relatively speaking.

There is no set rule or regulation on traffic pattern entry that I know of. There are only recommendations to ensure safety. But you are still not supposed to turn in front of another aircraft, which is why aircraft on final should have right of way. The aircraft on downwind would HAVE to extend or slow down to avoid turning in front of another aircraft already established on final.

 

[poadeleted20]

How do you figure that it's contrary? Are you suggesting that someone on an IFR approach has no responsibility for fitting in with VFR traffic already there on approach? That's all I read in nosehair's comment.

What I read is that the poster thinks IFR traffic on a straight-in has to give way to VFR traffic in the pattern, and that thinking would be contrary to 91.113(g).

An IFR arrival to an airport that's VFR has no priority over VFR aircraft operating there and must exercise the responsibility to know where that traffic is and deconflict as required by 91.113(g).

IFR vs VFR is not a factor in the right of way rules, including 91.113(g). An IFR aircraft circling to land would have to give way to a VFR aircraft established on a straight-in final just as a VFR aircraft would have to give way to an IFR aircraft established on a straight-in final. It's the position, not the operating rule type, which determines the right of way.

 

[poadeleted20]

I haven't taken the time yet to look up 91.113(g)

Then allow me to direct your attention to that regulation's words:

g) Landing. 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, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. 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.

but, simple fact is, an aircraft operating under IFR in VFR conditions is equally responsible to see and avoid.

No question of that.

That most definitely means fitting in with VFR traffic (whether they need to tell ATC of a traffic avoidance maneuver or not).

No, it doesn't. As you see in that regulation, the question of who is IFR and who is VFR is not an issue regarding right of way between landing aircraft. There are times when the IFR must yield to the VFR, and times when the VFR must yield to the IFR, but regardless of who is IFR and who is VFR, if Airplane A turns in front of Airplane B which is already established on final forcing Airplane B to alter its approach, unless Airplane A is an emergency aircraft, the pilot of Airplane A has violated 91.113(g).

How that plays in the scenario of an IFR aircraft on a straight in, and a VFR aircraft on downwind, I don't know.

Then read 91.113(g) and learn.

I would agree that it would be courteous of the VFR aircraft to extend down wind,

Courtesy is too often in the eye of the offended party, but the regs are clear. If the VFR aircraft on downwind can turn in and land without forcing the IFR aircraft on straight-in final to alter its approach, there is no need to extend. If the VFR aircraft cannot do that, then the VFR aircraft is legally obligated to extend and follow the IFR aircraft.

and make sure folks behind him in the pattern follow suit.

That's not the first VFR aircraft's problem -- it's up to the PIC's of those subsequent aircraft to do the right thing.

 

[poadeleted20]

There might be a reason for the a pilot on an actual (vs. practice) instrument approach to not cancel until they're on the ground but that doesn't obviate the need for them to enter a VFR environment and behave like VFR traffic in the pattern.

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.

 

[poadeleted20]

Any chance you could explain this? I'm certainly not trying to tell you you're wrong, I just don't get it. What's the point of documenting the proper procedure for entering the traffic pattern in the AIM if someone can just say "screw it, I'm not going all the way over there to enter on the 45, I'm just going straight in", and then have the others in the pattern have to work around you. My understanding of the straight in is that it's not preferred, but ok as long as it's not affecting the others already in the pattern. Maybe I'm missing a concept here because I've had no IFR training.

First, while the AIM recommendations provide approved means of complying with the regulations, they are not the only way to comply with the regulations. Entering on the upwind or crosswind are completely legal if not "recommended," as is flying a straight-in approach within certain limites (primarily being established on final at least 2-3 miles out -- see Administrator v. Boardman on that). Read the Fekete case cited above for their thinking on that as it applies to this situation.

As for the "why," you'd have to ask the FAA; I'm only telling you what the rules are and how the FAA interprets them. The "why" is often a mystery to me, too.

 

[EppyGA]

Does all this back and forth apply to someone that is just practicing approaches?

 

[poadeleted20]

Does all this back and forth apply to someone that is just practicing approaches?

Not sure what you mean by "this back and forth," but 91.113(g) certainly does, because there's nothing in that reg which talks about the purpose of the flight.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Because of visibility, I was forced to just stay in the pattern.
...

the Skylane responded that he was No. 2 to land and looking for me.

Ok, one question - did YOU see the Skylane before you turned base / final?

If there is someone on final and you don't see them, turning in towards them seems like a bad idea (unless you are sure they are still a few miiles away).

 

[PittsDriver]

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.

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 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." It's legal if you comply with 91.113 but IMO, it's not acting responsibly. If you're flying a Falcon 9x, it's a different matter and you have to do what you have to do and in that case, the bugsmashers in the pattern would be acting responsibly to extend and let you land - that's not in FAR 91.113 either.

 

[Gary F]

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. The 182 was not on a 10 mile final but should have reported " Cessna WXYZ 10 miles south (or whatever) straight in for RWY XY". Everybody inbound and in the pattern should attempt to coordinate to avoid a conflict. Experienced pilots can usually determine when somebody will be on final and can identify potential conflicts early if everybody is making appropriate radio calls.

I think it is a good idea for all student pilots to announce that they are student pilots. We all realize that students are often nervous and may have a problem determining if they will conflict with other traffic due to inexperience. Students are more likely to get confused and make mistakes when they report their position. I will often delay my arrival or whatever it takes to avoid a conflict with a student or anybody who sounds unsure of themselves. It is much safer for me to do a 360 inbound than to have a student alter a normal pattern.

 

[ScottM]

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.

What defines a "normally flown traffic pattern"???

If I am arriving on an approach then my final approach is from the FAF to the runway threshold for the straight in. The field may be VFR with traffic flying circuits. I would technically have the right of way from those not already ahead of me on final. But to make nice I will try and fit into the pattern. This has happened to me once. I broke out 3 miles east of the field and they were VFR doing a small eagles or whatever that EAA thing is called. Everyone was on that radio talking to each other and we made it work. A plane on down wind extending too far to let me go might have blundered into IMC. Better to let him cut infront of me, I grab the upwind and sequence accordingly than to push for regulatory rights.

I think it is a good idea for all student pilots to announce that they are student pilots. We all realize that students are often nervous and may have a problem determining if they will conflict with other traffic due to inexperience. Students are more likely to get confused and make mistakes when they report their position. I will often delay my arrival or whatever it takes to avoid a conflict with a student or anybody who sounds unsure of themselves. It is much safer for me to do a 360 inbound than to have a student alter a normal pattern.

Absolutely agree and me too.

 

[Everskyward]

If you're flying a Falcon 9x, it's a different matter and you have to do what you have to do and in that case, the bugsmashers in the pattern would be acting responsibly to extend and let you land - that's not in FAR 91.113 either.

When you hear a Falcon on final it might be nice to know if it is one of these,

Or one of these.

There are a number of airplanes which are quite different but have the same name. I have looked for what I thought was an Eclipse jet and found out it was a Diamond Eclipse.

 

[nosehair]

I made my comment based on a 'normal' pattern size, 'normal' pattern etiquette, and understanding the OP to describe the instrument final caller to be '5 miles out' when he was at the abeam point. That would seem to be enough time to get around the base and final before the 5 mile final gets to the threshold. Extending the downwind would be extending about 2 1/2 miles.

It's a judgment call, and considering the experience level of the OP, I said it looked alright to me.

Now, for those of you who consider an instrument approach into class g airspace to be on final at the IAF, look closely at the final words in 91.113(g): "...the lower aircraft has right of way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front, or overtake an aircraft already on final."

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. I can fly the pattern with 1 mile vis and remain clear of clouds. How can I see this 5 mile final guy? How can I even think of extending my downwind out by 2 or 3 miles to accommodate his pattern entry which is not recommended by the AIM, and may cause me to lose visual with the field?

I think being on final at about 3 miles, which is also about a thousand feet AGL is sufficient to say you are on a final that should be respected by the pattern-established traffic, but if the instrument approach pilot is greater than 3 miles out when the pattern traffic turns final, the inside traffic is established on final, and the instrument approacher has to not overtake the final.

Of course, we make nice, and when we can, extend and do 360s for the faster inbounds, but...it is not the law.

 

[Gary F]

What defines a "normally flown traffic pattern"???

I was hoping that one of you guys could give some regulatory clarification. Obviously, in a standard pattern I turn downwind to base when I am approximately 45 degrees from the end of the runway. I realize that there is considerable variability in a usual traffic pattern. It is not a 10 mile "final" for a 182.

If I am arriving on an approach then my final approach is from the FAF to the runway threshold for the straight in. The field may be VFR with traffic flying circuits.

The FAF is the beginning of the final approach under IFR. At my airport the FAF is about 5 miles out and I believe that this is typical for most airports. Many VFR pilots have no idea where the FAF or other IFR waypoints are and would consider 5 miles out to be well outside of the VFR pattern. I give position reports based on direction and distance or obvious landmarks. I would be nervous if somebody is VFR in the pattern at a non-towered airport when the ceiling is VFR minimum and I am on an instrument approach, not as much time to visually acquire the traffic after breaking out but this has never happened to me.

I would technically have the right of way from those not already ahead of me on final.

I think that everybody else already on final would be ahead of you since I do not think final extends beyond the FAF in any case. The question is if somebody else can turn base to final or downwind to base ahead of you. If you have just reached the FAF then base to final for somebody in the pattern should be fine, for the downwind to base probably not. We are all expected to communicate and resolve conflicts before they occur.

But to make nice I will try and fit into the pattern. This has happened to me once. I broke out 3 miles east of the field and they were VFR doing a small eagles or whatever that EAA thing is called. Everyone was on that radio talking to each other and we made it work. A plane on down wind extending too far to let me go might have blundered into IMC. Better to let him cut infront of me, I grab the upwind and sequence accordingly than to push for regulatory rights.

Me too. There are too many jerks in the sky so I am determined not to be one of them.

 

[steingar]

I would encourage the OP to loudly and frequently proclaim his identity as a student pilot. The rules don't say that everyone should get out of the way and let him land his aircraft, but they should.

 

[Keith Lane]

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: --->>>

 

[nyoung]

You will probably get a lot of different opinions on this one. I would say the bottom line is to communicate well. Understand where the other plane is, what his plan is, and communicate your plan. Be prepared to alter your plan if need be... and try your hardest to visually pick up the incoming traffic on final.

In this specific case, if you were turning downwind while the 182 was 5 miles out... although I think there was still time for you to fly downwind, base and final (esp if you kept it tight) there was a potential conflict developing. I would have wanted visual contact before I turned base, and at a minimum a distance update from the Skylane.

On that note, take distance readings from other traffic with a great deal of skepticism... (this could probably be a thread all to its own). Ideally, the distance reading is to the end of the runway, but most are referencing a GPS that is tracking to the airport reference point (typically near the mid-field). Some estimates are made visually from known landmarks, some are made visually by guesstimating.

Last, there are pilots who will intentionally under-estimate their distance to give themselves priority over other traffic. I've heard pilots call 2 mile final when they didn't cross the threshold for another 3 minutes. I have a tough time believing their ground speed was really 40kts. I suppose that's better than doing the opposite, but it still is frustrating.

Everything went great but I had a situation arise where I was unsure what to do.