Pattern Wars - The New FAA Answer - Or Not

Daleandee

Daleandee

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
6,878
Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Paul B. gives us his take on the "new & improved" FAA oversight of pattern wars that seem to never be resolved ...

The new guidance says this: “The FAA discourages VFR straight-in approaches to landings due to increased risk of a midair collision. However, if a pilot chooses to execute a straight-in approach for landing without entering the airport traffic pattern, the pilot should self-announce their position on the designated CTAF between 8 and approximately 10 miles from the airport, and coordinate their straight-in approach and landing with other airport traffic.”
Click to expand...

The full article is here: https://www.avweb.com/insider/pattern-wars-part-deux/

... and the new Advisory Circular: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66C.pdf
 
Hi.
Baked Potato said:
Where is the clause that exempts Mooneys from this rule
Click to expand...
The the other mini Gods that own the World, I can't fly a Pattern type.
Nothing will change until a couple of more people get killed.
 
bluesideup said:
Hi.

The the other mini Gods that own the World, I can't fly a Pattern type.
Nothing will change until a couple of more people get killed.
Click to expand...
Or the ones that think because of they're in the pattern they have supreme right away over anybody else within 20 miles of the airport.
 
I don't see how this is any change from the previous AC90-66B. Some of the wording has changed slightly because the internet lawyers fussed so much about it. But, the way I see it the new one just adds more ambiguity.

IMHO, if you're on a straight in, "final" is when common sense says any traffic in the pattern will have to yield to you to avoid a collision. Its going to vary greatly from one situation to the next. And we (as pilots) should be mature enough to handle this without any drama. Sadly, that is just not always the case.
 
Straight in final (VFR or IFR), once you're established on final - no matter how far out (1 mile or 10 miles), you have the legal right of way. It doesnt mean no one else can land in front of you and it isnt the nicest thing to do, just that you have the right of way in a conflict if something does. Until the FAA changes this legal wording - all of their circulars and everything else is just a lot of hot air to tell you what they say to do, but it doesnt protect you any more legally. . . One reason they cant abolish straight ins, is because of IFR. . .
 
This seems to only add to the confusion.

Common sense dictates that if a plane is on final and I don't have adequate room/time to land & get out of the way that I need to extend my downwind & follow them in. I'm not certain that the common sense needed in these situations can be written in neat & orderly rules. Much of this relies on pilot judgment at a particular place and time. Courtesy is should be a trait of a good pilot ...
 
I'm disappointed that they don't support the upwind approach when approaching from the non-pattern side of the field, and if requiring everyone to have a radio was the solution to avoiding mid-airs we'd already be about 98% there, which we clearly are not.

The FAA publishes right-of-way rules, then publishes recommended pattern activities that don't adhere to those principles. As if we need more confusion at non-towered fields . . .
 
EdFred said:
Or the ones that think because of they're in the pattern they have supreme right away over anybody else within 20 miles of the airport.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, why can’t arriving traffic enter The pattern by over flying the field upwind, then crosswind, downwind, base? If an aircraft was arriving from any other direction, they would have to enter the pattern at the appropriate juncture. I don’t know why this is so hard.
 
Daleandee said:
This seems to only add to the confusion.

Common sense dictates that if a plane is on final and I don't have adequate room/time to land & get out of the way that I need to extend my downwind & follow them in. I'm not certain that the common sense needed in these situations can be written in neat & orderly rules. Much of this relies on pilot judgment at a particular place and time. Courtesy is should be a trait of a good pilot ...
Click to expand...
Not sure about being common sense. Overflying upwind would be the least disruptive to those already in the pattern. Plus it allows time for the arriving aircraft to orient to any special issues.
My feeling is, if you are established in the pattern it is ‘your’ airport. Newcomers should work to establish themselves in the pattern with minimal disruption and maximum communication. That is common sense to me.
 
Morgan3820 said:
My feeling is, if you are established in the pattern it is ‘your’ airport. Newcomers should work to establish themselves in the pattern with minimal disruption and maximum communication. That is common sense to me.
Click to expand...
But when that becomes a common "feeling" (which it is) and it conflicts with the right-of-way rules and even some of the advisories it becomes a source of potentially deadly errors. What's worse, IMHO, is the misunderstanding of ROW and application of the misunderstanding to behavior in the pattern. For instance, "understanding" that the aircraft at the lower altitude has the ROW is dangerous unless you ALSO understand that the exception to that rule is that you can't cut off an aircraft on final. It's worth noting that most of the collisions that occur at non-towered fields happen on the final approach path.
 
Daleandee said:
This seems to only add to the confusion.

Common sense dictates that if a plane is on final and I don't have adequate room/time to land & get out of the way that I need to extend my downwind & follow them in. I'm not certain that the common sense needed in these situations can be written in neat & orderly rules. Much of this relies on pilot judgment at a particular place and time. Courtesy is should be a trait of a good pilot ...
Click to expand...
And part of it relies on clear and adequate communication. A student pilot, who hears "Cessna NxxxJW on final" and doesn't have the knowledge to know that it's a twin moving twice as fast as his 150 can easily think he has plenty of time when he doesn't. Even more experienced guys like myself can occasionally get fooled. A King Air on medevac status out in Odessa recently called a 5 mile final on opposite traffic to what everyone else had been using when I was about to take off. I presumed that was still adequate spacing and called for departure on the runway that the last two departures were using. King Air pilot got a wee bit ugly on the radio and we cleared the runway since I didn't want to get into an argument. Turns out he had a good tailwind, but adequate performance to make that landing and did indeed get on the ground rather quickly. I personally think he should have blended with the other traffic departing into the wind, but at the end of the day, it wasn't worth getting into an argument over the radio about it.
 
dbahn said:
But when that becomes a common "feeling" (which it is) and it conflicts with the right-of-way rules and even some of the advisories it becomes a source of potentially deadly errors. What's worse, IMHO, is the misunderstanding of ROW and application of the misunderstanding to behavior in the pattern. For instance, "understanding" that the aircraft at the lower altitude has the ROW is dangerous unless you ALSO understand that the exception to that rule is that you can't cut off an aircraft on final. It's worth noting that most of the collisions that occur at non-towered fields happen on the final approach path.
Click to expand...
If the parties involved communicate effectively, misunderstandings would go way down. But NORDO aircraft can’t do that. If only there were small portable transceivers that NORDO aircraft could use to communicate with other aircraft in the pattern.
 
Anthem said:
Straight in final (VFR or IFR), once you're established on final - no matter how far out (1 mile or 10 miles), you have the legal right of way. It doesnt mean no one else can land in front of you and it isnt the nicest thing to do, just that you have the right of way in a conflict if something does. Until the FAA changes this legal wording - all of their circulars and everything else is just a lot of hot air to tell you what they say to do, but it doesnt protect you any more legally. . . One reason they cant abolish straight ins, is because of IFR. . .
Click to expand...
I've seen similar things mentioned a lot.... and while it's been a long time since I read the regs with great care, I'm not so sure about that. I don't think you're on final at 10 miles out.... even something fast like an F-16. You may be on approach, but not final.... cause I'm sorry....but you aint in the pattern!
and doesn't an IFR approach into a VFR pattern have to fit into that VFR traffic? Seems to me that huge issue centers around this idea of straight in finals. I think Morgan3820 in post#9 is spot on. It aint hard....stop trying to be so selfish.

Straight in works ok....when there's not much traffic in the pattern.....but otherwise not so much.
 
RyanShort1 said:
And part of it relies on clear and adequate communication. A student pilot, who hears "Cessna NxxxJW on final" and doesn't have the knowledge to know that it's a twin moving twice as fast as his 150 can easily think he has plenty of time when he doesn't. Even more experienced guys like myself can occasionally get fooled. A King Air on medevac status out in Odessa recently called a 5 mile final on opposite traffic to what everyone else had been using when I was about to take off. I presumed that was still adequate spacing and called for departure on the runway that the last two departures were using. King Air pilot got a wee bit ugly on the radio and we cleared the runway since I didn't want to get into an argument. Turns out he had a good tailwind, but adequate performance to make that landing and did indeed get on the ground rather quickly. I personally think he should have blended with the other traffic departing into the wind, but at the end of the day, it wasn't worth getting into an argument over the radio about it.
Click to expand...
Over the radio, but given the opportunity, on the ground, I would have had a chat with him. Ambulances don’t get to run red lights.
I have also noticed that commercial users seem to feel a sense of importance over the recreational user. I boat too and the commercial fisherman definitely have that attitude.
 
Anthem said:
Straight in final (VFR or IFR), once you're established on final - no matter how far out (1 mile or 10 miles), you have the legal right of way.
Click to expand...


Really? 10 miles, huh? What about 12 miles? Or 15? 20? 50? Why not 100 miles?
 
Morgan3820 said:
Over the radio, but given the opportunity, on the ground, I would have had a chat with him. Ambulances don’t get to run red lights.
I have also noticed that commercial users seem to feel a sense of importance over the recreational user. I boat too and the commercial fisherman definitely have that attitude.
Click to expand...
I was taking off. We had a mission to fly. No option to have a convo.
 
Brad W said:
and doesn't an IFR approach into a VFR pattern have to fit into that VFR traffic?
Click to expand...


Yes it does.

The most frequent problem I seem to encounter here is a training flight with a CFII who doesn’t want the student to transition into the pattern. At some sleepy field, fine, but when there are four or five planes buzzing around the pattern and others inbound, it’s dangerous. Take the student elsewhere OR teach him to enter the pattern safely.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I have also noticed that commercial users seem to feel a sense of importance over the recreational user. I boat too and the commercial fisherman definitely have that attitude.
Click to expand...
You might feel the same way if you got in their shoes. Been airborne taking photos for 4 hours and some yahoo is flying sloppy and you just want to land? Yeah, I know that feeling.
I'm sure the fishermen are ready to get that load in to port and are tired.
 
RyanShort1 said:
You might feel the same way if you got in their shoes. Been airborne taking photos for 4 hours and some yahoo is flying sloppy and you just want to land? Yeah, I know that feeling.
I'm sure the fishermen are ready to get that load in to port and are tired.
Click to expand...
I am sure that the ambulance is in a hurry too but they still cannot run a red light.
 
A couple of days ago, I was approaching rwy 7-25 from the south. No one was talking on the radio. Winds were calm. 25 is the calm wind runway.

10 miles out, I announced “ten south, landing left traffic 25.”

Someone spoke up, saying “[number], would you mind landing 7? We’ve been doing pattern work on 7 for a while now and would rather keep it that way.”

I said, “25 is the preferred calm wind runway, but keep doing what you’re doing and I’ll fit in.”

He thanked me then, and again when I cleared the runway.

This is what it’s like to be an adult, nay, a gentleman!
 
Morgan3820 said:
If only there were small portable transceivers that NORDO aircraft could use to communicate with other aircraft in the pattern.
Click to expand...
I assume you're being sarcastic. But many non-electric aircraft have unshielded ignitions, making a radio unusable.
 
flyingron said:
What about RVs doing overhead breaks?
Click to expand...
Described in the AC, as well as AIM Paragraph 5-4-27. It’s sometimes a good alternative to the now-“discouraged” straight-in. Not limited to RV’s, of course.
 
Anthem said:
Straight in final (VFR or IFR), once you're established on final - no matter how far out (1 mile or 10 miles), you have the legal right of way.
Click to expand...
From a regulatory standpoint distance is not mentioned, nor does it matter until it creates a problem. The regulations DO establish that you can't pass over, under or ahead of an aircraft with the ROW unless "well" clear. So when two aircraft at the same altitude are converging 100 miles from each other, one of them has the ROW. Big deal. It doesn't matter. The one without the ROW is already "well clear" and only has to worry about it with the distance apart threatens the "well clear" part of the regulation. Similarly, remaining well clear of a J3 on final is a lot different than remaining well clear of a Citation, with respect to distance.

Personally, I think trying to define distance with such an important concept is counter-productive, when the regulations already define who has to do what to avoid a collision. Obviously, both are required to avoid the collision, but why have any ambiguity about who should act first?
 
Morgan3820 said:
Respectfully, why can’t arriving traffic enter The pattern by over flying the field upwind, then crosswind, downwind, base? If an aircraft was arriving from any other direction, they would have to enter the pattern at the appropriate juncture. I don’t know why this is so hard.
Click to expand...
Morgan3820 said:
Not sure about being common sense. Overflying upwind would be the least disruptive to those already in the pattern. Plus it allows time for the arriving aircraft to orient to any special issues.
My feeling is, if you are established in the pattern it is ‘your’ airport. Newcomers should work to establish themselves in the pattern with minimal disruption and maximum communication. That is common sense to me.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment here. No one likes when someone "cuts the line". But, what about the case of a business jet coming to a smallish airport with 2-3 slow movers doing repetitive patterns? Should the jet enter the pattern upwind? Even if they do enter a pattern instead of coordinate a straight in, their pattern will be much larger; that will result in essentially the same thing as a straight in, no?
What about the case for a small aircraft like mine which they teach us to fly like a jet? Big pattern, rounded base, final, on specific and fast speeds... My plane just doesn't mesh well with the typical small airport pattern worker.
 
RyanShort1 said:
You might feel the same way if you got in their shoes. Been airborne taking photos for 4 hours and some yahoo is flying sloppy and you just want to land? Yeah, I know that feeling.
I'm sure the fishermen are ready to get that load in to port and are tired.
Click to expand...
ha ha
yeah....sounds like it's probably very similar to the feeling I get trying to fly a pattern and have to extend my base turn a very unsafe "miles away" from the runway....either because of someone flying B-52 bomber patterns....or some pilot thinking that being on 10 mile straight in gives him a "beat the system advantage" and is perfectly safe
 
Guys in patterns are frequently lemmings. I show up at FDK (back before it got really fouled up with a control tower) and everybody is landing downwind or crosswind. "Hey, guys, why don't we all switch to 30?" Usually, all it takes is the suggestion...
 
Morgan3820 said:
Respectfully, why can’t arriving traffic enter The pattern by over flying the field upwind, then crosswind, downwind, base? If an aircraft was arriving from any other direction, they would have to enter the pattern at the appropriate juncture. I don’t know why this is so hard.
Click to expand...
I can think of reasons...IFR mixing with VFR, or...how about a large jet?
 
Country Flier said:
I can think of reasons...IFR mixing with VFR, or...how about a large jet?
Click to expand...
"Upwind" is not the same as "departure" so you wouldn't fly the upwind over the runway but rather offset to the side. So personally if I'm approaching from the opposite side of the pattern I''d rather fly upwind to get a good look at the pattern (and the windsock) then start the crosswind and downwind as soon as it looks clear. It adds all of about 60 seconds or less and both increases my visibility to other aircraft and my ability to spot other aircraft.

Also, on the upwind you are flying in the same direction as landing and departing traffic, so the closure rate between two aircraft is much slower. In the NORDO Cub it's not unusual for me to enter the upwind even if I'm in position to land straight it, because I'm more visible to other aircraft for a longer period of time and more turns, and I have more time to study the whole airport environment. At least NORDO aircraft know for sure that no one is listening to them. ;)
 
From 9.5 in the above linked AC:

"All traffic, whether IFR or VFR, should, at a minimum, monitor the CTAF. For
departures a minimum of 10 minutes prior to taxi and arrivals a minimum of 10 miles out
from the airport, you should broadcast your intentions. The importance of air-to-air
communications cannot be overemphasized. Failure to follow this communication
protocol has contributed to near midair collisions (NMAC), and as such could be
considered careless and reckless operation of an aircraft."

NORDO is allowed but it seems that "careless & reckless" could be be considered against a pilot not following a communication protocol that is not required ... :dunno:
 
Morgan3820 said:
Not sure about being common sense. Overflying upwind would be the least disruptive to those already in the pattern. Plus it allows time for the arriving aircraft to orient to any special issues.
My feeling is, if you are established in the pattern it is ‘your’ airport. Newcomers should work to establish themselves in the pattern with minimal disruption and maximum communication. That is common sense to me.
Click to expand...
If you’ve ever tried to follow a Cub in a turbine airplane, especially when the Cub feels it’s “his” airport, you might feel that the fewer pattern lets you fly, the better.
 
Entering the pattern from the inside at pattern altitude is insanity and a potential mid-air waiting to happen.

Some jackwagon did that to me at night and he got reeealy close. Big nope.
 
This morning I had a guy call “southwest of field entering on downwind for 18”. He proceeded to fly the downwind, turn base 18/crosswind 36, continue into the downwind for 36, all at pattern altitude. I called him up and asked if he meant downwind for 36, and he says no, downwind 18. Crosses the other end of the runway at pattern altitude back into the downwind for 18, and then lands normally on 18.

I sure as hell had no idea what the heck he was doing. I just circled around outside the pattern until he was on the ground.
 
Country Flier said:
I can think of reasons...IFR mixing with VFR, or...how about a large jet?
Click to expand...
Yup. Personally, I'd rather extend my downwind and just let the jet in rather than have him try to follow me @ 70mph.

To me it's kinda like merging onto a busy freeway. Eyes outside, find a space and take what's there. It's nice when someone lets you in and stinks when someone speeds up to block you out, but nevertheless...you take what's there.

Discussions/arguments about "right-of-way" are for accident reports. Just use common sense and courtesy.
 
Last time out I overflew and enter downwind for 27. Sock was right down the pipe for it. As I'm almost abeam, an Aeronca announces he's taking off on 9. Asked to make sure I saw the winds correct, he said they favored 27 but on a hot day with a 3k foot runway. He would rather go with a downwind takeoff in an Aeronca and depart to the north. I did a 360, said some choice words to myself, then landed without incident.

The local flight school at another airport has been doing downwind departures on the 2800' runway. Last 3 times I've been there have had guys do that. Yeah, Im not gonna use that one just cuz you are.
 
jbarrass said:
Yup. Personally, I'd rather extend my downwind and just let the jet in rather than have him try to follow me @ 70mph.

To me it's kinda like merging onto a busy freeway. Eyes outside, find a space and take what's there. It's nice when someone lets you in and stinks when someone speeds up to block you out, but nevertheless...you take what's there.

Discussions/arguments about "right-of-way" are for accident reports. Just use common sense and courtesy.
Click to expand...
Leaving work there's a merge...but it's actually a yield for the merging traffic. But the merging traffic doesn't understand what a yield means. So on occasion I like to play a game of highway chicken. I get so many middle fingers and I just laugh.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Except they can and do, and in the air, it's not a red light. Try another analogy.
Click to expand...
In my state ambulances must still obey the traffic laws. Drivers that do not may be liable. Just because someone else runs a light doesn't make it right or smart. If time is important , call a Medivac.

But my point is that whether you are being paid or not is irrelevant to your actions on the road, water or air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top