Straight in approach for student pilots?

whereisrandall

whereisrandall

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
333
Location
Wiscasset, Maine
Display Name
Display name:
Randall Williams
We returned home from a lesson yesterday lined up with the runway, and my student (4.5 hrs, no landings by himself yet) wanted to land straight in. Strip is 07, 3300 ft, with PAPI. winds were 060 8G18.

My strong preference for beginners is teaching a pattern entry, (even if we enter upwind) so that the descent is stable, rather than improvising power management over a long final.

Any CFIs disagree and want to set me straight?

R
 
whereisrandall said:
We returned home from a lesson yesterday lined up with the runway, and my student (4.5 hrs, no landings by himself yet) wanted to land straight in. Strip is 07, 3300 ft, with PAPI. winds were 060 8G18.

My strong preference for beginners is teaching a pattern entry, (even if we enter upwind) so that the descent is stable, rather than improvising power management over a long final.

Any CFIs disagree and want to set me straight?

R
Click to expand...
Why would power management be significantly different other than needing a little less power with no turns? I would be more concerned with sight picture and habit pattern, but one approach won't make that much of a difference. The upwind entry and turn to downwind would probably be more beneficial at that stage, but I don't think it would make much difference either way in the long run. If he really wanted to see a straight in for some reason I would probably let him.
 
whereisrandall said:
My strong preference for beginners is teaching a pattern entry, (even if we enter upwind) so that the descent is stable, rather than improvising power management over a long final.

Any CFIs disagree and want to set me straight?
Click to expand...

Why limit it to "for beginners"?

Over my instructing career, I came to believe that if all pilots continued to fly with the habits they were taught as students, the accident rate would plummet. And that the things I taught students in order to make things easier and safer for them, made it easier and safer for me as well.

Students will get practice with straight-ins at towered airports. At non-towered airports my students would always fly a pattern after a flyover, as I continue to do now after roughly 40 years.
 
whereisrandall said:
My strong preference for beginners is teaching a pattern entry, (even if we enter upwind) so that the descent is stable, rather than improvising power management over a long final.

Any CFIs disagree and want to set me straight?

R
Click to expand...
Two questions...

1. What constitutes a "beginner"? Yes, in early stages I'd stick to a full pattern, but a straight-in is legal, and like many things, better taught to students than figured out on their own later on.

2. How are you teaching the straight-in such that it's not stable? Power management is the same as a pattern. Same reduction from cruise to whatever you use in the pattern, with techniques to estimate the 3-degree or whatever glide path angle you normally use on final.
 
FastEddieB said:
Why limit it to "for beginners"?

Over my instructing career, I came to believe that if all pilots continued to fly with the habits they were taught as students, the accident rate would plummet. And that the things I taught students in order to make things easier and safer for them, made it easier and safer for me as well.

Students will get practice with straight-ins at towered airports. At non-towered airports my students would always fly a pattern after a flyover, as I continue to do now after roughly 40 years.
Click to expand...

This. The only reason to fly a straight-in to a non-towered airport would be in the case of engine problems (or no engine) and a low altitude, or other emergency, like fire. Otherwise, you want to visually check traffic, wind, runway obstructions (e.g. stray animals) and in general be fully aware of the environment before committing to a landing.
A budding pilot will get plenty of practice doing it into towered airports, sometimes from 30+ miles out.
 
I am pretty low time and just getting back into it the last couple years after a looooong lay off but just looked at the log book. I have 156ish hours and 536 landings. So 3.4 landings per hour (seems high but I do like landings at least one per flight :) ). I think I have done a straight in maybe 2X. It doesn't take that long to get in the pattern gets me in the mindset and running through my process. Also it annoys the daylights out of me when I am in the pattern and some person screws me up by calling a straight in which makes me alter what I am doing.
 
RotorDude said:
This. The only reason to fly a straight-in to a non-towered airport would be in the case of engine problems (or no engine) and a low altitude, or other emergency, like fire. Otherwise, you want to visually check traffic, wind, runway obstructions (e.g. stray animals) and in general be fully aware of the environment before committing to a landing.
A budding pilot will get plenty of practice doing it into towered airports, sometimes from 30+ miles out.
Click to expand...
So why would you set your student up to have little to no experience for a situation that he would likely encounter in an emergency?
 
Learning to fly at a non towered airport it was a bit surprising to have to do a straight in at a towered. It should be taught along with good habits of what to do when. Or you could teach an overhead maneuver so they would know what that is and not be surprised when the RV crowd calls for one.
 
EdFred said:
So everyone else should alter what they are doing. Got it.
Click to expand...
Not what I was saying. But they could just join the pattern and don't cut me off since I was already there.
 
Pilots are notoriously horrible at judging long, straight-in power off approaches.

Best bet with a power failure is to go straight to the nearest runway you can arrive at safely at or above pattern altitude. Then circle down to a "key position" abeam your intended point of landing, downwind at about 1,000' . From that point it should just be a relatively standard power-off approach.

Yet again and again in simulated emergencies I've seen pilots try to glide straight-in or fly really wide or unconventional patterns and misjudge to the point of coming up way short.

I did not teach long, straight-in approaches - they came up often enough at towered airports they did not need specific attention.
 
FastEddieB said:
Pilots are notoriously horrible at judging long, straight-in power off approaches.

Best bet with a power failure is to go straight to the nearest runway you can arrive at safely at or above pattern altitude. Then circle down to a "key position" abeam your intended point of landing, downwind at about 1,000' . From that point it should just be a relatively standard power-off approach.

Yet again and again in simulated emergencies I've seen pilots try to glide straight-in or fly really wide or unconventional patterns and misjudge to the point of coming up way short.

I did not teach long, straight-in approaches - they came up often enough at towered airports they did not need specific attention.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to give them more experience judging it. That's my point.
 
Nothing wrong exposing a student to a straight in, as well as other "nonstandard" entries (ex right traffic).
 
DFH65 said:
Not what I was saying. But they could just join the pattern and don't cut me off since I was already there.
Click to expand...
Being in the pattern does not give one priority or a perceived right of way. In fact in a left traffic pattern you are to give way to anyone else entering the pattern(except midfield crosswind) based on the ROW rules.
 
EdFred said:
Being in the pattern does not give one priority or a perceived right of way. In fact in a left traffic pattern you are to give way to anyone else entering the pattern(except midfield crosswind) based on the ROW rules.
Click to expand...
Again not what I am referring to there is ROW, common courtesy and just being a selfish jerk. But you want to argue and I don't have the energy this morning. So I will yield ROW to you.
 
mscard88 said:
Nothing wrong exposing a student to a straight in, as well as other "nonstandard" entries (ex right traffic).
Click to expand...

Very true. But there's a big difference between exposing them to it and allowing them to do it regularly out of laziness or an attempt to cut 0.1 off the rental time.

I was taught to fly by an overly anal and conservative ex-military guy, thankfully. And he always made me fly full standard pattern, wouldn't even let me cross midfield. I still don't. He did, however, "expose" me to straight-ins.
 
DFH65 said:
Again not what I am referring to there is ROW, common courtesy and just being a selfish jerk. But you want to argue and I don't have the energy this morning. So I will yield ROW to you.
Click to expand...
I agree stating that "I am in the pattern everyone must fit themselves around ME" definitely puts one squarely in the selfish jerk column.

We all share the airspace we all have to give and take a little. Maybe you have to extend your downwind by 5 seconds, maybe someone else has to practice slow flight because your patterns are larger and slower than what they are used to (or capable of) doing. I'm going to have trouble sharing the pattern with a Cub. Or maybe that jerkface butthole doing straight ins is actually getting instrument current and according to the powers that be he has to fly it to minimums under simulated instrument conditions for it to count. It is not your pattern, nor is it mine. Give a little take a little.
 
Not to mention what if someone is doing a practice IFR approach... I do it all the time at non towered fields and we do IFR approaches straight in, most of the time :) Sorry it annoys that guy - but that's life. Down here in Florida you will have 4 or 5 guys in the pattern and then here comes a guy straight in. Annoyed or not you need to share the road :)
 
It's been pretty easy in my opinion... you talk, dude figures out he can get in before you, you agree, he goes in, you follow, life is good, we're all friends.
 
EdFred said:
Being in the pattern does not give one priority or a perceived right of way. In fact in a left traffic pattern you are to give way to anyone else entering the pattern(except midfield crosswind) based on the ROW rules.
Click to expand...
All well and good, but probably a good idea to be familiar with the legal interpretations that say otherwise...excerpted from John Yodice's column (emphasis mine):

The second case, also in Alaska, is similar in that the captain of an airliner made a right turn into a final approach to the runway, maintaining that his approach qualified as a straight-in approach. He was relying on instructions in the Alaska Airlines flight operations manual. The instructions provide that straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports “shall be planned so that the aircraft is aligned not less than four nautical miles from the approach end of the runway.” Actually, the airplane was not completely aligned until it was about 3.1 miles out—in order to avoid another aircraft on a practice instrument approach to the airport. The evidence showed that this other aircraft had to abort the practice approach. The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern.” The captain lost his pilot’s certificate for 20 days.
Click to expand...

The full column available at http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2011/May/1/Pilot-Counsel
I'll let you look up the actual cases if you so desire.
 
You going to the Ron Levy school of citing cases?

91.126 says nothing about yielding to traffic already in the pattern as a fixed wing aircraft.
 
No, simply citing a case where the guy lost his ticket for a bit because he thought the same thing you do.
 
No, he lost his ticket because he made a right hand turn deemed to be in the pattern/vicinity causing another airplane to abort their approach. The 91.126 quote might as well be a quote about 91.143

Maybe the old 91.89(a) said something different, but 91.126 says absolutely nothing about straight ins having to yield. Maybe Yodice went to the Ron Levy school of case citing.
 
EdFred said:
No, he lost his ticket because he made a right hand turn deemed to be in the pattern/vicinity causing another airplane to abort their approach. The 91.126 quote might as well be a quote about 91.143
Click to expand...
True...but the court also stated that the outcome wouldn't have been different had it been a legal straight-in.

That may not make it a "legal interpretation, but I think it's definitely worth knowing in the context of this discussion. YMMV.
 
Read the whole article. They specifically said had the straight in commenced from further out it would NOT be a violation.
 
EdFred said:
Read the whole article. They specifically said had the straight in commenced from further out it would NOT be a violation.
Click to expand...
I did...I see nothing that says if a straight in is made that conflicts with traffic in the pattern it would not be a violation.
 
The law judge did suggest that a turn in anticipation of a straight-in approach made five or six miles out would not be considered a violation. On further appeal to the full board, the NTSB sustained the law judge. So, we can glean from this case that, according to the NTSB, a turn to final one to two miles out in a jet airliner is not a straight-in approach. And, according to at least one NTSB law judge, an approach after a turn to final five or six miles out would be considered a straight-in approach.
 
EdFred said:
The law judge did suggest that a turn in anticipation of a straight-in approach made five or six miles out would not be considered a violation. On further appeal to the full board, the NTSB sustained the law judge. So, we can glean from this case that, according to the NTSB, a turn to final one to two miles out in a jet airliner is not a straight-in approach. And, according to at least one NTSB law judge, an approach after a turn to final five or six miles out would be considered a straight-in approach.
Click to expand...
Again, nothing in there that says it can interfere with traffic in the pattern.
 
When I was training, my instructor wore me out with all kinds of approaches. I don't remember how many landings I had, but it was a bunch. I would say that 80% were typical traffic pattern approaches, but we did many different ones, heck, he even showed me an overhead so I would know what it looked like. As it turned out, I needed that experience. While doing my long XC, I was approaching my last airport, I had never been there. I was flying almost 270 into a setting sun with haze, and they were launching gliders. There was a great big hill to the south of the field and I honestly got a little flummoxed. I couldn't see, gliders, a hill etc., but the runway was right in front of me, runway 27. I announced over the CTAF that was approaching from the east and was a little uncomfortable flying the pattern and wanted to go straight in. Everyone there started giving me their position reports and basically cheered me on. It was a non event and as I look back on it, its almost funny. I am thankful that my instructor had shown it to me.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Again, nothing in there that says it can interfere with traffic in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Nothing in 126 says yield to traffic in the pattern either. And guess what, if I'm straight in, I'm on final, and guess who has right of way at that point?
 
EdFred said:
Nothing in 126 says yield to traffic in the pattern either. Andd guess what, if I'm straight in, I'm in final, and guess who has right of way at that point?
Click to expand...
Based on the judge's statement, I'd say the guy on base. But since you obviously disagree, I'd suggest the guy on base yield to you to avoid a midair.
 
If the guy is on base and I'm 4 miles out, there is no conflict. And apparently you and Yodice believe 91.113(g) is to be ignored. So noted.

I personally believe Yodice either botched the article or the NTSB misstated which regulation it would be a violation of. The airline pilot caused someone else on a straight in to abort their approach, not someone in the pattern Had they said it would have been a violation of 91.113 I can see their point. But to say that91.113 is to be completely ignored, I don't get it
 
Last edited:
I feel like it's a good Idea to at least show a student what a straight in approach looks like. At 4 hours? That's kind of a waste, but at some point I don't see how it can hurt. Ok, back to the b!tchfest.
 
(I understand this thread was started with a request for CFI's to comment_I am not)

I am a VFR student private pilot in training and like most student pilots I was taught the rectangular pattern from the start. I have flown out of 2 tower controlled airports in Houston area. KSGR and KDWH. from literally the 2nd time I flew the pattern with my instructors.there was enough traffic in the area, that the tower asked us to extend our downwind leg and as I were to learn,in many cases the tower would call our base. so I learned very early in learning the pattern to be prepared to extend the downwind leg, probably to come in for a long final as a result. this happens at KDWH almost every other time I fly there. I realize that some CFI's in this forum may instruct at non towered fields where air traffic is low volume yet letting a student do one long final is a good thing
 
One thing about straight ins, pilots tend to forget to do their prelanding checklist and land with the prop knob out, mixture set for cruise and wheels still up. So dont neglect to drill in prelanding checklist for straight landing, what do you ALWAYS do?
 
coloradobluesky said:
One thing about straight ins, pilots tend to forget to do their prelanding checklist and land with the prop knob out, mixture set for cruise and wheels still up. So dont neglect to drill in prelanding checklist for straight landing, what do you ALWAYS do?
Click to expand...

I ALWAYS check the gear down at least 5 times. Once when lowering it, once with each notch of flaps, and once on short final - always. Doesn't matter if I'm entering downwind, crosswind, 45, or straight in, this is always the routine. I can't have my mixture set for cruise, because I descend under power, and my engine would have quit/gotten rough long before I got to TPA. As far as propeller goes, I leave it out, because I'm not going to be that guy that has to make all sorts of "look at me noise" ****ing off anyone in the neighborhood by letting the tips sing. If I have to go around, everything goes forward anyway.
 
whereisrandall said:
We returned home from a lesson yesterday lined up with the runway, and my student (4.5 hrs, no landings by himself yet) wanted to land straight in. Strip is 07, 3300 ft, with PAPI. winds were 060 8G18.

My strong preference for beginners is teaching a pattern entry, (even if we enter upwind) so that the descent is stable, rather than improvising power management over a long final.

Any CFIs disagree and want to set me straight?

R
Click to expand...

I'll give you my perspective as a new-ish pilot. I did a lot of flight simulator flying before I started flight training. Very early on (I'd guess around 10 hours), while learning at a towered airfield, I was given a straight in approach. It was a piece of cake. I just watched the PAPI and adjusted powered to make sure I had two red and two white lights, and I maintained pitch for airspeed. After that lesson I spoke with some of my pilot friends at work about the straight in, and they all talked to me about how complicated it was. I thought they were crazy. What was the big deal?

Well, fast forward about 70 hours of flying, and a couple of hundred standard pattern landings, and the straight ins are a bit tricky. I can't put my finger on exactly what is going on, but I am now to the point where I am VERY comfortable with a standard pattern entry, and moderately comfortable with the straight in.
 
DFH65 said:
Again not what I am referring to there is ROW, common courtesy and just being a selfish jerk. But you want to argue and I don't have the energy this morning. So I will yield ROW to you.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that you feel that people doing straight-in approaches, however legal they may be, are selfish jerks.

Are instrument students selfish jerks? Is there anything a guy doing a straight-in could do to not be a selfish jerk?

If I am lined up with the runway 50 miles away, and have landed there numerous times, I'm very very very sorry... but I'll just do the straight in. I'm not trying to save rental time, it's just that I'm already lined up, why not just land? It's perfectly legal, and I've never had problems coordinating with traffic in the pattern. I'll slow down if someone is in the pattern and is going to be able to turn final before me.

If I landed and somebody called me a selfish jerk to my face, I'd be floored. Would you be offended if tower told you to extend your downwind, or only if there is no tower to advise you to do that?

Whenever I've had to modify my pattern to let straight-in traffic in, I've never once thought "that JERK!". I've thought, "no problem, looking for traffic".

-confused
 
EdFred said:
I ALWAYS check the gear down at least 5 times. Once when lowering it, once with each notch of flaps, and once on short final - always. Doesn't matter if I'm entering downwind, crosswind, 45, or straight in, this is always the routine.
Click to expand...

Just reminded me about the other day, holding short for landing traffic, a guy in the pattern announced his position and followed up with "gear down"... same procedure ...downwind...base and final, obviously his way of checking, interestingly I checked as well for him as he came in on short final....but I did resist keying the mike and confirming "affirmative gear down"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top