Please report your position accurately! I want to live!

Shawn said:
B-52's have specified patterns as well, I see planes at my home field practicing those all the time!
Click to expand...

What a great thread! TWO of my Watsonville pet peeves brought out: giant patterns, and people reporting "river and freeway" simply because they can see the river and freeway from where they are.

Tim
 
Announce you're flying over planet Earth on Guard, regularly. That'll help everyone see and avoid you. ;)
 
Ah - today we have a perfect example of how it should work. I reported 4 miles SE, entering on a 45, and soon after a Skylane reported 5 miles south making an entry to downwind. I called 'not in sight', and then while I was still on the mic, I saw him and gave him my relative position and alt. He reported me in sight, I proceeded downwind, called base and final and landed. Even stood on the brakes for him and got off at the first taxiway, where I called clear. He landed right behind. Easy-peasy, just the way Orville and Wilbur intended, Cessna behind the Bonanza. ;)
 
Everskyward said:
I'll fly a straight in if coming from that direction, but I also have no problem flying a pattern. However, for the reasons stated above, it isn't that easy to integrate a 130--140 knot airplane into a pattern full of 70 knot airplanes. Of course our pattern is wider and higher but it's probably out there where others are maneuvering for their 45 degree entry.
Click to expand...

Plus you have the wonderful ability to fill the pattern with wake turbulence, yay!:lol:
 
docmirror said:
Ah - today we have a perfect example of how it should work. I reported 4 miles SE, entering on a 45, and soon after a Skylane reported 5 miles south making an entry to downwind. I called 'not in sight', and then while I was still on the mic, I saw him and gave him my relative position and alt. He reported me in sight, I proceeded downwind, called base and final and landed. Even stood on the brakes for him and got off at the first taxiway, where I called clear. He landed right behind. Easy-peasy, just the way Orville and Wilbur intended, Cessna behind the Bonanza. ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, you are too nice.. I let the slower aircraft go first ;)
 
brian];1544129 said:
Ah, you are too nice.. I let the slower aircraft go first ;)
Click to expand...

Letting the slower aircraft go first is a mistake and incurs more risk for both though.;)

That's what I like about driving in Italy, it's not rules based driving, it's courtesy based driving. Some people who have driven here briefly just blew Coke all over their keyboards, and to them I apologize, however it is true. Driving in Italy is how driving should be. To a person used to driving in the US, it looks like aggressive combat driving, but it's deceiving, it only looks like that from a US cultural perspective. What the reality is is that everyone wants to keep moving, so people leave gaps. You are welcome to that gap, ACCELERATE! If you see a gap, you can expect the courtesy of that driver to let off the throttle, DON'T HESITATE! GO, FLOOR IT! That is the courtesy they expect in return. So while from the US perspective this looks like full on road rage combat driving, it is the exact opposite, it is an exchange of courtesies, and the major accident rate for the traffic density is very low, most accidents I see are low speed or parking related. Italian society is pretty non aggressive, even the language is non aggressive sounding, my Latvian chef/stew says all the Italian guys sound gay.:lol:

Use some courtesy and common sense. If twin TP or jet is coming straight in, be glad they aren't in your pattern, you don't want them there, they don't belong. Even a HP piston twin doesn't belong in a pattern full of students in 80kt planes. My downwind speed in the 310 was 130, do you really want me flying up your ass with 50kts on you? Just use some common courtesy when you think. We all get to use the airport, let me get out of your way, I'll be on the ground and off before you cross the fence if you turn base when we pass.
 
Last edited:
I got to practice my short field appr on that deal. The wife even commented on our 'arrival'. There was clearly none of that 'chirp-chirp' casual smoothness that I'm well known for. I knew he was back there, kind enough to call 'turning final' as I was touching down so I showed him how short a Bo could land. Was nice to watch him roll past my turnoff about 40 knots a few seconds later. haha!
 
Straight-ins are fine as long as you work with traffic. Turboprops and jets are fine, again as long as they work with traffic.

BUT... if a plane's on short final, I don't care how slow it is, or how fast you are- Go around. Ditto if a piston's abeam the numbers when you're on a "straight-in" 7 miles out- join the d*** pattern.
 
If he's on short final, what's the issue? I'm going to be far enough behind that there won't be a problem, and if there is, I can go around and enter the pattern from that point, but then understand, you have a 130 it airplane in your pattern you still have to deal with. Now how do you want things to proceed from this point as I'm turning down wind and I'm going to catch you in 20 seconds as you were working T&Gs opposite the other guy. What do you think should happen now? What would you do in this position when you knew you had a plane 50kts faster behind you?
 
warthog1984 said:
Honest to God, I've had controllers pull both of those on me. And yes, they sent a Cherokee 6" off the runway around for a slo-tation on a 2 mile final.
Click to expand...

Completely different issue, we were talking pilot controlled, not tower controlled. Now we have a whole extra aspect of rules that apply and another guy they apply to.
 
You think this is bad (position reporting), I just landed after seeing something I didn't expect: an r22 headed for me while on final. No radio call, no lights, same altitude !!!

(I had been calling on CTAF for miles.)

He (assuming here) finally saw me and turned up wind and out of my path. Happened pretty quick, but we spotted each other in plenty of time.

This is not to say we shouldn't be talking on the radio, but at the end of the day, you need to know where you are and look out the window. (And yes, I can always of better. Hopefully this pilot will now know about this little grass strip just outside little rock..)
 
Everskyward said:
Those links are both about using right-hand turns in the pattern when they should have been left-hand turns. The pilot claimed he was straight-in, which would have been fine if he had really been straight in. It was ruled that the right-hand turn was made too close in to be considered a straight-in.
Click to expand...

But the pilots defense was they were doing a straight in. They called 'straight in, runway xx' and in one case interfered with other traffic. It was the interference that got one of them, not the right turns. The guy hung for right turn, should have been hung for it, because he called straight in, but wasn't.
 
EppyGA said:
Pet peeve of mine is guys doing practice approaches announcing the current fix they just flew over.

I was out doing some approaches myself one day and there was someone else doing a practice approach to the same airport. He announced what approach he was doing and what fix he was over while I was announcing what approach I was flying and where I was in distance and direction.

I keyed up and asked him he wouldn't mind telling me where he was since I didn't have his plate in front of me. He started using distance and direction and we worked together very well. ;)
Click to expand...
Yea, reporting over a fix is as useful as not reporting at all to other traffic. If I'm shooting an approach I give miles and direction.
 
docmirror said:
But the pilots defense was they were doing a straight in. They called 'straight in, runway xx' and in one case interfered with other traffic. It was the interference that got one of them, not the right turns. The guy hung for right turn, should have been hung for it, because he called straight in, but wasn't.
Click to expand...


In that case it was the interference that got the pilot, not the fact that it was a straight-in approach.
 
Um - that's what I just wrote, and you quoted. oy-vey
 
This is my biggest area of concern. Not only for others, but myself. I'm lucky in that what I fly (1998 C172R) has GPS and I can just look over. Still, I find myself saying I'm 10 or 5 miles out, but not being precise about whether it's West or slightly NW etc...

One persons recommendations of landmarks is a great idea. I think I'll start adding both.
 
docmirror said:
But the pilots defense was they were doing a straight in. They called 'straight in, runway xx' and in one case interfered with other traffic. It was the interference that got one of them, not the right turns. The guy hung for right turn, should have been hung for it, because he called straight in, but wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yes the pilot claimed he was making a straight in approach but the FAA didn't agree. They also said or implied that had he actually been on a straight in (either turned final well outside the pattern or was arriving from a point within about 30° of the FAC) he wouldn't have been in violation.

So I guess you should actually say that this one pilot was violated for NOT making a straight in approach.
 
Henning said:
There's far more airports that see 0-6 movements per day than have a pattern full of students, and those students better learn to deal with straight in traffic because almost every airline and IFR approach to any airport will be straight in.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top