Right of way question

[poadeleted20]

For this discussion, when does the final start per FAR?

When you align yourself on the extended runway centerline.

 

[poadeleted20]

How is that ruling in any way consistent with the other CC interpretation thread on 'VFR traffic requirement to obey ATC'?

See 91.123(b) -- "(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." Apparently the Chief Counsel thinks entering Class B airspace without a clearance would be an emergency, and I think that would apply to entering the FRZ, too. I think an impending mid-air collision would also constitute an emergency. Other examples I can think of include the 91.155 VFR cloud clearance/visibility requirements and terrain/obstruction avoidance.

It all goes with the requirement to demonstrate good judgment, i.e., you gotta be smarter'n a box'o'rocks. If there's a good legal or safety reason to disobey a controller's instructions in controlled airspace, you do what you have to do, but don't think that saving five minutes of gas constitutes "a good legal or safety reason to disobey a controller's instructions in controlled airspace" -- ask Chris Eden about that.

 

[poadeleted20]

Given that a turn in the pattern direction over the airport is an option and a safe one at that, I think that claiming 91.3 would be a stretch.

I've never been a fan of maneuvering inside the traffic pattern. What happens if the plane on final decides or needs to go around and you've just closed the door on him? At Freeway, which I think is a special case, I'll stick with the left turn out of the pattern and reentry -- and I've flown in there both IFR and VFR many times since the FRZ went into effect.

 

[Jaybird180]

Chris' case is confused by the fact that he was being flippant. I'm not sure that adds clarity. I'll think about this.

 

[bqmassey]

How did you determine that?

I didn't, the FAR's did.

If they call 5-mile final, there's nothing to figure out. You just work on that basis, knowing the distance and the relative speed of their type and yours, and make a sound decision what to do. That's what the "command" part of PIC is all about.

I'm pretty familiar with aircraft types, and I've turned in front of traffic who were on a very extended runway centerline, but many students are not familiar, especially the helicopter students. Many don't know a Citation from a Citabria. Being conservative, there are a lot of extended downwinds when someone calls a 7 mile final.

I've heard 5+ mile finals from biz jets and turboprops (somewhat understandable), many models of high performance singles, and National Guard helicopters. The guys in the HP singles, in my experience, are the worst.

All I'm asking is that pilots who want to fly straight-ins remain willing to break off and enter the pattern if, when getting near the airport, it's obvious that their approach interferes with traffic.

For instance: "XYZ Traffic, Bonanza 1234, five miles north, 5000 ft, inbound for landing, XYZ" When they get closer and have an idea what the traffic is, then either declare final and fly straight-in, or break off and enter the pattern with the flow of traffic.

Instead, they use the magic words "final", and now, because of the regs, the four planes in the pattern have to work around the one plane instead of the one plane working around the other four.

 

[airheadpenguin]

To stand up for the right 270 in an empty traffic pattern here was my thought process:

1) It was communicated over CTAF, the other plane was aware it was being done
2) It is a common maneuver when the tower's open
3) It puts you closer to the runway should you have an actual emergency at low altitude at night
4) Turning right on the left downwind to base doesn't risk the airspace conflict that left does

 

[Velocity173]

It's a judgment call if you're in the pattern. If you're on downwind either extend to follow or go in front of the traffic as to not "cut off" the traffic. While I support AC 90-66A and don't continue with a straight which would interfere with the flow of traffic, I also honor the fact that part 91 has precedence. It's about cooperation. I guess I'm just more tolerant of having to add a couple minutes to my flight or even having to do S turns because a J-3 turned in front of me on final.

 

[denisd]

To stand up for the right 270 in an empty traffic pattern here was my thought process:

1) It was communicated over CTAF, the other plane was aware it was being done
2) It is a common maneuver when the tower's open
3) It puts you closer to the runway should you have an actual emergency at low altitude at night
4) Turning right on the left downwind to base doesn't risk the airspace conflict that left does

That doesn't address the plane behind you operating no radio that you may be turning into.

 

[roncachamp]

I didn't, the FAR's did.

Nonsense.

All I'm asking is that pilots who want to fly straight-ins remain willing to break off and enter the pattern if, when getting near the airport, it's obvious that their approach interferes with traffic.

How can the straight-in approach interfere with traffic given that it has the right-of-way? Your understanding of right-of-way rules and proper pattern procedures is in need of an upgrade.

 

[roncachamp]

To stand up for the right 270 in an empty traffic pattern here was my thought process:

1) It was communicated over CTAF, the other plane was aware it was being done
2) It is a common maneuver when the tower's open
3) It puts you closer to the runway should you have an actual emergency at low altitude at night
4) Turning right on the left downwind to base doesn't risk the airspace conflict that left does

But it violates the regulation nonetheless.

 

[bqmassey]

Nonsense.

What's nonsense? I think there's a miscommunication.

How can the straight-in approach interfere with traffic given that it has the right-of-way?

Because it wouldn't have the right of way if they weren't on "final". Assume a north-south runway with three planes already in the pattern. What's the difference between be seven miles north and en route, or seven miles north "on final"? The intention of the pilot.

The more cooperative thing to do is to gain an understanding of what's going on at the airport and, if it's busy, break off your straight-in if it's not compatible with what's currently going on at the airport. What the regulations say you can do is just going ahead and call it "final" seven miles out, granting yourself immediate right-of-way and requiring that the other three aircraft to avoid you.

I'm not saying that the guy on the seven mile final is wrong by regulation, I'm saying he's an *******.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm pretty familiar with aircraft types, and I've turned in front of traffic who were on a very extended runway centerline, but many students are not familiar, especially the helicopter students. Many don't know a Citation from a Citabria. Being conservative, there are a lot of extended downwinds when someone calls a 7 mile final.

That's life, and I'll never be the one to criticize someone for being conservative when they are unsure what to do, even if it costs me an extra two minutes in the pattern.

I've heard 5+ mile finals from biz jets and turboprops (somewhat understandable), many models of high performance singles, and National Guard helicopters. The guys in the HP singles, in my experience, are the worst.

I'm not sure why you think announcing your position and intentions 5 miles out is a bad thing.

All I'm asking is that pilots who want to fly straight-ins remain willing to break off and enter the pattern if, when getting near the airport, it's obvious that their approach interferes with traffic.

Now I see the problem -- you think arriving aircraft on a straight in should for some reason of your perceived idea of courtesy break off their approach and give way to anyone in the pattern. Well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but the FAA doesn't support your position, and if you act on or express that opinion in the wrong circumstances, you might end up having a real bad day out of it. Choose wisely.

 

[roncachamp]

What's nonsense?

That the FARs determined this:

"My frustration is that they're using, whether intentional or not, the "final" to indicate that the approach is now theirs and they have the right-of-way."

Because it wouldn't have the right of way if they weren't on "final".

But they are on final and aircraft on final do have the right-of-way.

Assume a north-south runway with three planes already in the pattern. What's the difference between be seven miles north and en route, or seven miles north "on final"? The intention of the pilot.

So?

The more cooperative thing to do is to gain an understanding of what's going on at the airport and, if it's busy, break off your straight-in if it's not compatible with what's currently going on at the airport. What the regulations say you can do is just going ahead and call it "final" seven miles out, granting yourself immediate right-of-way and requiring that the other three aircraft to avoid you.

More nonsense. An aircraft that reports "on final" is not declaring that it is the next aircraft to land, as you seem to believe. Right-of-way is an issue only if two aircraft would otherwise occupy the same point in space, or nearly so. The cooperative thing to do in this situation is for aircraft in the pattern to understand that aircraft on final have the right-of-way and yield to them.

I'm not saying that the guy on the seven mile final is wrong by regulation, I'm saying he's an *******.

You're wrong.

 

[bqmassey]

What I've written seems clear to me, but I must not do a very good job of getting my point across.

I don't have a problem with people announcing their intentions 5-8 miles out. I don't have a problem with people making straight in approaches. I have a problem with people declaring right-of-way from 5-8 miles out by calling it a "final".

It may sound bizarre, but yes, I would prefer that people entering the pattern yield to people already in the pattern, instead of using 93.113(g) to clear a path for them.

 

[bqmassey]

That the FARs determined this:
"My frustration is that they're using, whether intentional or not, the "final" to indicate that the approach is now theirs and they have the right-of-way."

But they are on final and aircraft on final do have the right-of-way.

You have clearly misunderstood what I was saying on this bit. We're in agreement. 93.113(g) gives them right of way.

That the FARs determined this:
More nonsense. An aircraft that reports "on final" is not declaring that it is the next aircraft to land, as you seem to believe.

I don't believe that, and haven't claimed to.

That the FARs determined this:
Right-of-way is an issue only if two aircraft would otherwise occupy the same point in space, or nearly so. The cooperative thing to do in this situation is for aircraft in the pattern to understand that aircraft on final have the right-of-way and yield to them.

Or, for the aircraft on final to not make a straight-in. Both would solve the separation problem.

All I'm saying here is that even though it's legal to call out a 5, 10, or 15 mile final to make sure you don't have to give right of way to anyone, it's more cooperative to yield to three planes in the pattern, than to make the three planes in the pattern yield to you.

You're wrong.

It's quite bold to consider yourself such an authority that you can declare an opinion to be true or false.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not saying that the guy on the seven mile final is wrong by regulation, I'm saying he's an *******.

You're wrong.

Without knowing anything more about the person on 7-mile final, I'd be hesitant to flatly say Brandon's wrong about him/her being a [whatever got *'d out], but one cannot justify that characterization based solely on that pilot making a 7-mile straight-in unless the party making that characterization has a seriously distorted perception of the appropriateness of straight-in approaches, which it appears is the situation here.

 

[poadeleted20]

What I've written seems clear to me, but I must not do a very good job of getting my point across.

I don't have a problem with people announcing their intentions 5-8 miles out. I don't have a problem with people making straight in approaches. I have a problem with people declaring right-of-way from 5-8 miles out by calling it a "final".

It may sound bizarre, but yes, I would prefer that people entering the pattern yield to people already in the pattern, instead of using 93.113(g) to clear a path for them.

As noted above, it seems you do not understand the requirements of the regulation. "Calling it a 'final'" does not some how "clear a path" for someone, as in requiring that nobody land before they do. It merely lets others know that there is an airplane on final for a straight-in so the other aircraft can either turn in (if they have enough room) or go behind (if they don't). That's the rule, and regardless of one's personal opinion of that rule (for which there are a lot of good reasons), if you want to play in this playground known as the National Airspace System, you accept it and follow it until such time as you get the FAA to change it.

Beyond that, enough's enough -- we know how you feel, but your personal feelings don't change the situation no matter how many times you express them. You can ask folks to yield to your plane already in the pattern, but there is no justification for calling them [something the auto-censor will *-out] because they do not. That is much the attitude Mr. Fekete exhibited in his case, and you know how badly it ended for him.

 

[Palmpilot]

How is that ruling in any way consistent with the other CC interpretation thread on 'VFR traffic requirement to obey ATC'?

You expect the Chief Counsel's office to be consistent?

 

[JoseCuervo]

I flew to a small airport and landed on runway 30, as the winds were light and variable, but, the sock favored 30. In the 20 minutes I was on the ground, several other planes also used runway 30.

Get back in the airplane and taxi out to depart on Runway 30 and just as I complete my run-up, I hear "XYZ area traffic, King Air 123 on "garbled" final for Runway 12. Then "8 mile final", then 3 mile final, etc...

If he would have been monitoring the frequency, he likely would have heard the other operations using 30.

Changing the traffic pattern, and then tying it up because he was "on final".

Worst part was, he didn't land, he declared a goaround and climbed back to altitude and continued on his route. He was likely just bored, and wanted to shoot an approach at some quiet airport in the middle of nowhere. By that time, there were two of us holding and waiting for him to get done with his "7 mile final".

 

[bqmassey]

Just to clarify, because you keep accusing me of the opposite, I fully understand that someone being on final does not legally prevent others from landing in front of them. It does require that others yield for them.

The difference between me and my hypothetical pilot is that when I'm 5-10 miles out I announce my position instead of committing myself and others to my "final". If it's apparent as I get closer that I'll be interrupting the flow that's already in the pattern, I swing around, yield to those in the pattern, and come in 45 degree to midfield downwind. If I'm not going to interfere with traffic in the pattern, then I'll call final and land straight in.

It's this simple: I feel like traffic coming from outside the pattern should yield for traffic already in the pattern. I don't feel like 91.113(g) should be used to obtain right-of-way, but to protect the right-of-way you already have by being in the pattern and number 1 for landing.

 

[roncachamp]

All I'm saying here is that even though it's legal to call out a 5, 10, or 15 mile final to make sure you don't have to give right of way to anyone, it's more cooperative to yield to three planes in the pattern, than to make the three planes in the pattern yield to you.

It's actually the other way round. It's more cooperative for three airplanes in the pattern to extend a bit than to require an aircraft to engage in a lot of unnecessary maneuvering.

It's quite bold to consider yourself such an authority that you can declare an opinion to be true or false.

Not when the opinion has no basis, as is the case here.

 

[roncachamp]

Just to clarify, because you keep accusing me of the opposite, I fully understand that someone being on final does not legally prevent others from landing in front of them. It does require that others yield for them.

It requires others to yield for them if, and only if, right-of-way is an issue. If you can complete your pattern without interfering with the aircraft on final then right-of-way is not an issue and you do not have to yield to it. I don't see how it can be stated any simpler than that.

 

[bqmassey]

It requires others to yield for them if, and only if, right-of-way is an issue. If you can complete your pattern without interfering with the aircraft on final then right-of-way is not an issue and you do not have to yield to it. I don't see how it can be stated any simpler than that.

I know this, and have said so. How many times must I reiterate for you to understand that this point is not in question.

It's actually the other way round. It's more cooperative for three airplanes in the pattern to extend a bit than to require an aircraft to engage in a lot of unnecessary maneuvering.

In my experience, someone entering on final when there is a well-developed and spaced flow of traffic in the pattern is far more disruptive than someone who yields to the flow of traffic and enters with separation.

Maybe people don't want, on top of everything else happening in the terminal environment, to have to do the mental math to figure out how much time they have. Maybe people don't know the type of aircraft and/or know how fast it's flying to even do this mental math. Maybe people don't want to come anywhere close to breaking a regulation, which could be something as simple as causing the approach aircraft to retard his approach speed.

Consider as well that if you're a slow plane extending for a fast plane, you might be three miles downwind by the time you can turn, delaying everyone in the pattern by 3+ minutes.

Whatever the reason, my experience is that a long final into an airport with multiple people in the pattern results in a cascading delay in operations. I'd prefer the single person outside the pattern to accept a delay, instead of forcing a delay on multiple others that have already entered the pattern and are preparing to land.

So... my opinion, which you've determined to be false (a silly determination thats not demonstrable), is that it's preferable for a pilot to observe the existing flow of traffic, merging slowly and/or where separation exists, instead of using 91.113(g) to shortcut the pattern, shifting the responsibility to deconflict onto those who are already at the airport.

 

[gismo]

One that is bordered by the FRZ on one side, prohibited airspace on the extended downwind course on the other side all under a Bravo. Or how about one, bordering Surface Bravo on the extended downwind course inside the FRZ.

KSGS (South St Paul, MN) is a good example. Left downwind for runway 16 runs into the KSTP class D a little more than one mile beyond the threshold.

 

[Jaybird180]

I think whats happening here, and I had the same errant understanding is that right of way meant #1, and it does not

 

[airheadpenguin]

Correct, it just means your ability to proceed unimpeded

 

[roncachamp]

I know this, and have said so. How many times must I reiterate for you to understand that this point is not in question.

You must stop writing things that suggest it is the issue.

In my experience, someone entering on final when there is a well-developed and spaced flow of traffic in the pattern is far more disruptive than someone who yields to the flow of traffic and enters with separation.

Then the conclusion must be that you have extremely limited experience.

 

[Palmpilot]

I get the feeling that some people would be happier if the regs were rewritten to say that traffic already in the pattern has the right of way over traffic making a straight-in, but I also have a feeling that that would have some non-trivial unintended consequences.

 

[EdFred]

I look at final like merging onto the interstate.

The guy on final is on the interstate, it's your job as the person on the on ramp (in the pattern) to fit in with the flow of traffic on the interstate. Doesn't matter that you keep doing endless loops on the cloverleaf interchange for the past hour, and he's just now getting there, it's your job to merge. I bet the ones whining are the type that expect the traffic on the interstate to move over for them when they come down the on ramp.

 

[bqmassey]

You must stop writing things that suggest it is the issue.

If you have gotten the impression that I think nobody can land in front of someone on long final, in spite of the many times I've written something to the effect of "I know someone can land in front of someone on a long final", than you aren't reading or I'm not writing clearly. I'm not too proud to say it couldn't be the latter.

Then the conclusion must be that you have extremely limited experience.

Maybe so. I can't make a claim for what happens everywhere, but at the airports I fly out of, someone calling a long final when the airport is busy really screws up the flow.

I get the feeling that some people would be happier if the regs were rewritten to say that traffic already in the pattern has the right of way over traffic making a straight-in

I would, yes. I think of it like a traffic circle. It works well because the people that are in it have the right of way and get out of the circle quickly. People from outside the circle have to yield to those that are already in it.

In the pattern, this is how it works from every direction, and it works just fine. But one leg, final, flips the responsibility to yield, and I don't think a pilot should use it to his advantage to cut off the traffic pattern.

I bet the ones whining are the type that expect the traffic on the interstate to move over for them when they come down the on ramp.

Not even close. I merge when it's my responsibility to do so, pass on the left, move to the right if I'm slower, and get annoyed with people who don't do all of the above.

I don't hold this opinion about long finals out of self-centeredness. I hold it because 1. I think final is a bad place to merge traffic that is conflicting, 2. I think that someone approaching on a 5+ mile final is less predictable (not in position, but in speed and ETA), and predictability is our friend, 3. In my "extremely limited" experience, someone approaching on a long final is more disruptive to the flow of traffic than if that person were to merge on downwind.

I'm not arguing for what a pilot has to do, I'm arguing for what a pilot should do. The FAR's say what you have to do. You have to stay out of someone's way if they're on final. We all agree on that. The AIM and AC says what you should do. From what I can tell, both support my suggestion.

Here are three excerpts from Advisory Circular 90-66A:

The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern. However, for those pilots who choose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic.

Prior to entering the traffic pattern at an airport without an operating control tower, aircraft should avoid the flow of traffic until established on the entry leg.

Arriving aircraft should be at the appropriate traffic pattern altitude before entering the traffic pattern. Entry to the downwind leg should be at a 45-clegree angle abeam the midpoint of the runway.

I don't mind straight-in approaches, I do them myself, I just hold the opinion that it shouldn't be done if it's going to interfere with those already occupying the traffic pattern.

 

[EdFred]

I don't hold this opinion about long finals out of self-centeredness. I hold it because 1. I think final is a bad place to merge traffic that is conflicting, 2. I think that someone approaching on a 5+ mile final is less predictable (not in position, but in speed and ETA), and predictability is our friend, 3. In my "extremely limited" experience, someone approaching on a long final is more disruptive to the flow of traffic than if that person were to merge on downwind.

I'm not arguing for what a pilot has to do, I'm arguing for what a pilot should do. The FAR's say what you have to do. You have to stay out of someone's way if they're on final. We all agree on that. The AIM and AC says what you should do. From what I can tell, both support my suggestion.

A few times when I've called straight in 5 miles out (though I'll usually call it at 10), I've gotten a response from someone in the pattern. A couple times I've slowed/s-turned and let them land in front of me, a few times they've just extended their downwind, and once or twice I've entered upwind and no one got worked up about it. Usually if it's instruction going on in the pattern it's a good learning experience for the student to see how much spacing there is when they turn after I'm abeam. I'm also usually coming down the pipe at 120kts, and if I'm "let in" by the first guy in the pattern I don't end up running down the 65kt'ers just turning crosswind when I'm abeam on the upwind.

Getting the fastest birds out of the air first usually makes for the smoothest pattern for everyone. Hell, I don't even care if you turn base when I'm at your 10:30, if I'm 50% faster.

 

[roncachamp]

If you have gotten the impression that I think nobody can land in front of someone on long final, in spite of the many times I've written something to the effect of "I know someone can land in front of someone on a long final", than you aren't reading or I'm not writing clearly. I'm not too proud to say it couldn't be the latter.

It is definitely the latter.

Maybe so. I can't make a claim for what happens everywhere, but at the airports I fly out of, someone calling a long final when the airport is busy really screws up the flow.

That may be, but the cause is not the person calling on a long final.

I don't mind straight-in approaches, I do them myself, I just hold the opinion that it shouldn't be done if it's going to interfere with those already occupying the traffic pattern.

There you go again.

 

[flyingron]

That's not exactly correct until it reaches the point where the PIC of the aircraft with the right of way feels the other aircraft doesn't see him/her or otherwise isn't doing what 91.113 requires. At,that point, an emergency situation exists and per 91.3(b), the PIC of the aircraft with the right of way is allowed to do whatever it takes to avoid a collision. If you have the right of way but then maneuver so the other aircraft's collision avoidance maneuver is negated, then you could be found in violation of 91.111(a).

I disagree. 91.113(b) is an OVERRIDING requirement that supercedes all that follow in 91.113. It's up to both pilots to avoid collisions. It should NEVER get to the 91.3 point.

 

[poadeleted20]

I disagree. 91.113(b) is an OVERRIDING requirement that supercedes all that follow in 91.113. It's up to both pilots to avoid collisions. It should NEVER get to the 91.3 point.

Just went through this with the FAA a couple of months ago after a NMAC in NY airspace. If the aircraft with the right-of-way maneuvers in a way that negates the avoiding action of the aircraft trying to avoid it, the pilot of the aircraft with the right-of-way becomes responsible for the results, at least according to the NY FSDO. I got thanked, and the other pilot got counseled.

 

[Captain]

If I'm in a left downwind I have never found it an issue to either turn in front of someone on a long final or extend and turn in after them. Non-issue either way.

If I enter the area on final I've also never had a problem working into the flow of the field. I have had planes turn in front of me and the spacing was too tight so I extended up wind and did a circuit in the pattern. Never felt the need to chase down a plane and have 'words' on the ramp.

If I'm in left traffic I'd prefer to make a right 360 back onto the downwind or a 270 to base over a left turn for conflict issues stated before. I do not see this as the intent of the 'all turns to the left' rule. This is departing the pattern to rejoin and appropriate.

If you wanted to get super technical with the 'all turns shall be made to the left' thing then if you're left of centerline on final then you couldn't correct back to the right.

 

[poadeleted20]

If I'm in a left downwind I have never found it an issue to either turn in front of someone on a long final or extend and turn in after them. Non-issue either way.

If I enter the area on final I've also never had a problem working into the flow of the field. I have had planes turn in front of me and the spacing was too tight so I extended up wind and did a circuit in the pattern. Never felt the need to chase down a plane and have 'words' on the ramp.

If I'm in left traffic I'd prefer to make a right 360 back onto the downwind or a 270 to base over a left turn for conflict issues stated before. I do not see this as the intent of the 'all turns to the left' rule. This is departing the pattern to rejoin and appropriate.

If you wanted to get super technical with the 'all turns shall be made to the left' thing then if you're left of centerline on final then you couldn't correct back to the right.

Agreed on all counts, with the caveat that when making that 360 on downwind or 270 on base, you have to be careful not to conflict with any plane that was originally behind you on downwind. In that situation, I would consider the plane behind me to be established in the pattern, while I was no longer established, requiring me to reenter the pattern behind it. Generally speaking, I'd rather just extend behind the plane in front of me so the flow is not jumbled.

 

[Captain]

Agreed on all counts, with the caveat that when making that 360 on downwind or 270 on base, you have to be careful not to conflict with any plane that was originally behind you on downwind. In that situation, I would consider the plane behind me to be established in the pattern, while I was no longer established, requiring me to reenter the pattern behind it. Generally speaking, I'd rather just extend behind the plane in front of me so the flow is not jumbled.

Concur. It'd be a strange day I'd do a 360 in the TP. Obviously a plane behind me has right away as I rejoin.

 

[poadeleted20]

Concur. It'd be a strange day I'd do a 360 in the TP. Obviously a plane behind me has right away as I rejoin.

For me the strange day was last Saturday. I've just joined left downwind from the 45 when some yo-yo in a Cherokee comes descending in on top of me from about 500 feet above -- fortunately from my left so I saw him coming. Tight right 360, and I join behind him, and coordinate on the radio with the other Grumman turning from the crosswind so he spaced nicely behind me. Cooperation works wonders in the face of stupidity.

 

[douglas393]

Concur. It'd be a strange day I'd do a 360 in the TP. Obviously a plane behind me has right away as I rejoin.

In the last month I have been asked to do exactly that twice by the tower at my home base. Once was for a flight of four entering the pattern on a right base, I was on left downwind, and the other time was for a biwing just turning on a left final I was on a right downwind. Did what I was asked to do, though in retrospect I could have extended my downwind just as well.

 

[Captain]

I'm usually the plane other planes are getting 'cycled' for by tower. On behalf of all kerosene burners inbound a rural field, "sorry and thanks".