Straight in at uncontrolled field

Ron Levy said:
J
Straight-ins never have to yield to traffic in the pattern unless the other traffic is an emergency aircraft or a privileged category (balloon, glider, airship). See Administrator v. Fekete.
Click to expand...

A case which also illustrates another concept of FAA enforcement: If you do something dumb, do it once, dont do it over and over.
 
Why would you not do a straight in? Its a valid pattern entry, and even has its own diagram in the AIM IIRC.
 
I fly straight-in approaches frequently, without shame!

There are only two regs you're dealing with here
1: direction of turns when approaching to land is mandatory
2: traffic at lowest altitude approaching to land has the right of way.

the FARs are pretty clear on these. It doesn't mean the bizjet on 5 mile final has priority over the cub on a close in base, nor does it mean the traffic on a "generous" downwind has priority over someone on a mile-final who decided to come straight in. Knowledge of these two regs and the common courtesy to go along with them are the keys to knowing when its OK to do a straight in, versus take a lap.
 
Immelman said:
I fly straight-in approaches frequently, without shame!

There are only two regs you're dealing with here
1: direction of turns when approaching to land is mandatory
2: traffic at lowest altitude approaching to land has the right of way.

the FARs are pretty clear on these. It doesn't mean the bizjet on 5 mile final has priority over the cub on a close in base, nor does it mean the traffic on a "generous" downwind has priority over someone on a mile-final who decided to come straight in. Knowledge of these two regs and the common courtesy to go along with them are the keys to knowing when its OK to do a straight in, versus take a lap.
Click to expand...

No.


§91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(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.
 
SkyHog said:
Why would you not do a straight in?
Click to expand...

Look back a few posts and I think I outlined some pretty good reasons.

Its a valid pattern entry, and even has its own diagram in the AIM IIRC.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not illegal, but I just looked in the AIM and at first glance it is not depicted as a valid pattern entry at all.

Airport_Traffic_Pattern_from_AIM_4-3-2.jpg
 
And, while stipulating its not legally required, the FAA is fairly clear in the above diagram and the below quoted text what they would prefer:


"c. Preparatory to landing at an airport without a control tower, or when the control tower is not in operation, pilots should concern themselves with the indicator for the approach end of the runway to be used. When approaching for landing, all turns must be made to the left unless a traffic pattern indicator indicates that turns should be made to the right. If the pilot will mentally enlarge the indicator for the runway to be used, the base and final approach legs of the traffic pattern to be flown immediately become apparent. Similar treatment of the indicator at the departure end of the runway will clearly indicate the direction of turn after takeoff."
 
Just do it. If you cheese someone off laugh at them and make it a double.
 
FastEddieB said:
Look back a few posts and I think I outlined some pretty good reasons.



Well, it's not illegal, but I just looked in the AIM and at first glance it is not depicted as a valid pattern entry at all.

Airport_Traffic_Pattern_from_AIM_4-3-2.jpg
Click to expand...

How about an advisory circular - AC90-66A:

attachment.php


Its there - and I'm not sure which has precedence....
 
Some years ago ( way before it had a tower) easton maryland, MU2 from Palm beach on LONG final to 22 at easton. Mu2 operated by pilot for mrs. Carpenter and was high time. Cessna 150 flying normal pattern to 22 and had just touched down. MU2 pilot apparently spotted cessna late and slowed. MU2's don't like slow, promptly stalled, flipped inverted, went into trailer park not far off end of runway and blew up. Communication problem coupled with different pattern choices. FBO at airport for many years always used standard pattern including daily shuttles to national apt. Using shrike commander and Bo.
 
At a WINGS seminar on Traffic Pattern Safety that I attended recently, for VFR conditions the speaker advocated 45 degree entry always, straight in never, at untowered airports.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Some years ago ( way before it had a tower) easton maryland, MU2 from Palm beach on LONG final to 22 at easton. Mu2 operated by pilot for mrs. Carpenter and was high time. Cessna 150 flying normal pattern to 22 and had just touched down. MU2 pilot apparently spotted cessna late and slowed. MU2's don't like slow, promptly stalled, flipped inverted, went into trailer park not far off end of runway and blew up. Communication problem coupled with different pattern choices. FBO at airport for many years always used standard pattern including daily shuttles to national apt. Using shrike commander and Bo.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what half of this means - not trying to be a jerk, but can you add some articles or something?
 
Just make the call…… Anyone in the pattern? and head for the numbers.
 
roncachamp said:
No.
Click to expand...

Well crap I'm wrong, thank you.

My preference then is that the courteous thing to do on a straight in is to yield to other traffic that would land in front of you or about the same time.
 
Immelman said:
Well crap I'm wrong, thank you.

My preference then is that the courteous thing to do on a straight in is to yield to other traffic that would land in front of you or about the same time.
Click to expand...

I yield to any traffic if it looks like we would get too close if I don't yield.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just what it says in 91.113(g):
So...
Straight-ins never have to yield to traffic in the pattern unless the other traffic is an emergency aircraft or a privileged category (balloon, glider, airship). See Administrator v. Fekete.

The only area where minimum distance from the field is an issue is when you're turning in from the side opposite the published pattern direction. In that case, 4-5 miles is plenty, and 1-2 miles isn't enough. See Administrator v. Boardman and the cases cited therein for details.

That's the official rule, and technically, communicating your intentions is not required, just courtesy.

No, I do not, and I do them quite often.
Click to expand...
Good post. Thanks Ron.
 
Immelman said:
Well crap I'm wrong, thank you.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

My preference then is that the courteous thing to do on a straight in is to yield to other traffic that would land in front of you or about the same time.
Click to expand...

My practice is to yield to traffic on final as it's safe, courteous, and required by regulation.
 
So you have 3 aircraft in the pattern doing T&Gs to rwy 36. An aircraft comes straight-in on the IAP to rwy 18. Does he have to break it off and enter the downwind or does he do a straight-in and force all the other aircraft to adjust their patterns? ;)
 
Last edited:
If I were the one flying the approach, assuming it's VFR, I would join the downwind for 36 once I reached pattern altitude. If it's IFR, I'd wonder what the 3 planes in the pattern are doing. :dunno:
I do straight ins when I think it's appropriate, for me that's limited traffic in the pattern, wind information available, and some familiarity with the airport. ;)
The airport where I get my avionics work done has a lot training activity, so maybe 1 out of 3 trips I fly a straight in.:dunno: even though it's almost perfectly aligned with my arrival. ;)

Velocity173 said:
So you have 3 aircraft in the pattern doing T&Gs to rwy 36. An aircraft comes straight-in on the IAP to rwy 18. Does he have to break it off and enter the downwind or does he do a straight-in and force all the other aircraft to adjust their patterns? ;)
Click to expand...
 
NoHeat said:
At a WINGS seminar on Traffic Pattern Safety that I attended recently, for VFR conditions the speaker advocated 45 degree entry always, straight in never, at untowered airports.
Click to expand...
Immelman said:
My preference then is that the courteous thing to do on a straight in is to yield to other traffic that would land in front of you or about the same time.
Click to expand...
The speaker can "advocate" anything s/he wants, and you can "prefer" anything you want, but the rules are clearly enunciated above and the case law (Fekete case linked above) is also clear. Feel free to choose not to do straight-ins if that's your preference, but when flying the pattern, do not cut off someone who is doing a straight-in so they are forced to go around. Among other things, that means looking out up the final as well as at the runway when on downwind deciding when to turn base, and both ways on base leg when you are about to turn final. And don't rag anyone else either in person or on CTAF if they do one -- I've heard of someone doing that, and after landing having the straight-in pilot pull out an FAA Inspector's credentials and proceed to give him some on-the-spot counseling.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
So you have 3 aircraft in the pattern doing T&Gs to rwy 36. An aircraft comes straight-in on the IAP to rwy 18. Does he have to break it off and enter the downwind or does he do a straight-in and force all the other aircraft to adjust their patterns? ;)
Click to expand...
The pilot on the straight-in doesn't have to do anything -- s/he has the choice of continuing straight in (in which case the aircraft not on final must yield) or joining the pattern and following the others in sequence (see the part of 91.119(g) about overtaking). Where there could be some conflict is if one of the T&G planes is already on final for 36, in which case the plane lower/closer to the runway has right-of-way.

As always, if you can politely sort this out on CTAF, it works a lot better.
 
timwinters said:
Personally, I won't do a straight-in unless the pattern is empty.
Click to expand...

Bingo! If anyone is in the pattern, I will not do a straight in approach and join the pattern. Just common sense.

Where it is interesting is doing a practice approach when the pattern is occupied. I normally go missed way early instead of causing disruption to the pattern.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Where it is interesting is doing a practice approach when the pattern is occupied. I normally go missed way early instead of causing disruption to the pattern.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, but if you're doing instrument training, an IPC, or an instrument practical test, you don't always have that option.
 
Ron Levy said:
The pilot on the straight-in doesn't have to do anything -- s/he has the choice of continuing straight in (in which case the aircraft not on final must yield) or joining the pattern and following the others in sequence (see the part of 91.119(g) about overtaking). Where there could be some conflict is if one of the T&G planes is already on final for 36, in which case the plane lower/closer to the runway has right-of-way.

As always, if you can politely sort this out on CTAF, it works a lot better.
Click to expand...


So Ron then why the confliction with 91.113 and AC90-66A? Obviously the FAR takes precedence but why not remove the bit in the AC about the straight-in not disrupting the flow of traffic? If someone lands straight-in to a field with a tailwind and I have to do a go around because of it, he just disrupted the flow of traffic.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
So Ron then why the confliction with 91.113 and AC90-66A?
Click to expand...
There is no conflict. AC 90-66A gives a recommendation on best practices, but 91.113 gives the rule about right-of-way. One can choose to do what the AC says and fly the pattern, or yield to aircraft in the pattern, but if you're in the pattern, you must yield right-of-way to anyone established on final. And, as I said above, there are times when the straight-in aircraft really has to do a straight-in, and the rule on that must be (and is) clear because we can't have folks arguing about that in flight.
 
SkyHog said:
How about an advisory circular - AC90-66A:

attachment.php


Its there - and I'm not sure which has precedence....
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

Clearly, there are times a straight in is called for. As an instrument instructor I've done many practice approaches that ended with a straight in approach and landing.

I'm glad it IS depicted, since every single pilot flying a base leg should be checking for traffic that might be coming straight in - we know from this thread it's a real possibility. And radio failure or selecting the wrong frequency or having the volume turned down is also possible for that straight in pilot.

Like I said, I think I'm marginally (infinitesimally?) safer flying a pattern, so I choose to do so. When I teach, I try to teach recommended procedures, so it's how I taught it as well. And I assume most of us were taught that way before deciding it was unnecessary and optional.

Possibly more to follow...


PS - a lot of the difference in technique may have to do with aircraft flown and mission. A pilot in a King Air flying his boss for hire is probably more likely to come straight in than a 150 pilot. A tenth or two extra in the air may be trivial for the 150 pilot, but less so in a turboprop or jet.
 
RoscoeT said:
.... So tell me, what is the definition of "cutting in front of"? ....
Click to expand...

As Justice Stewart once said:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

Of course, the Honorable Justice Stewart was not referring to airport traffic patterns, but his comment fits none the less.

:D


Mike
 
FastEddieB said:
Look back a few posts and I think I outlined some pretty good reasons.



Well, it's not illegal, but I just looked in the AIM and at first glance it is not depicted as a valid pattern entry at all.

Airport_Traffic_Pattern_from_AIM_4-3-2.jpg
Click to expand...

Look up Advisory Circular 90-66A, mentioned earlier in this thread. Available from www.faa.gov.

Bob Gardner
 
Fast Eddie makes a great deal of sense to me. His posts are full of common sense and if I were choosing a bi annual review instructor from this august body I would surely choose him.
 
Ron Levy said:
There is no regulation saying you cannot land behind them as they roll out as long as you do not create a collision hazard.
Click to expand...

I guess I always know if my brakes are gonna work! :goofy::goofy:


I understand that I could have - but it was more fun watching him trying so hard to get me to go around ....
 
Saw that.

Now, a quick aside on the Law Of Primacy (NOT).

In general, you tend to remember best that which you were taught first.

But…

…admittedly each of these could spin off its own debate but…

1) Private Pilot Practical Test Standards require that each applicant demonstrate that he or she can land an airplane "at approximately stall speed".

Stand by any busy airport runway and watch so see how many still do. And I'm not talking jets or carrier landings - I'm talking small planes touching down 10k or 20k above stall speed when nothing is calling for that.

2) All pilots should have been taught not to touch anything or "clean up" the airplane on landing roll. To wait until clear of the active and stopped. But fly with a variety of pilots and see how many actually continue to do that.

3) All pilots should have been taught to always do a thorough preflight. How many of us have seen pilots do VERY abbreviated preflights or none at all?

4) We were always taught the importance of checklists. Yet how often to we see pilots doing things from memory. Which usually works. Except when it doesn't.

5) And then there's traffic patterns. I don't think many of us on our check rides came straight in - we had been trained to fly a standard pattern, and the examiner was judging us on our ability to do so.

In each case a pilot was taught what is considered to be the "right" way to do something, and had to demonstrated that he or she could, but then later at some point decided to put aside that training, often as a simple short cut.

And often accident and incident reports have as contributing factor(s) some shortcut a pilot took.

As an instructor, I tried to not be hypocritical. The worst message I think an instructor can send is "For now, we'll do it like this because we have to, but later I'll show you how its really done." And those words do not have to be spoken - students pick up quickly when the instructor's subconscious message is "Do as I say, not as I do".

Anyway, sorry if that came across as "preachy" - its just that I often find it just as easy to do things the way I was taught, and the way I teach, than to just go off on my own, as it were.

As I said, it works for me - YMMV!

Oh, and Jim, thanks! It's rewarding to know that not ALL of my words are falling on deaf ears!
 
Last edited:
I don't even do straight ins to my private strip. There's always the possibility that there's a lawnmower or something on the strip.
 
FastEddieB said:
5) And then there's traffic patterns. I don't think many of us on our check rides came straight in -
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree. I'll bet every one of us with an Instrument rating did a straight-in on the IR practical test. And I know for sure that there have been a lot more than one straight-ins on PP practical tests, too. Yes, you do have to do at least one standard pattern on the PP test, but that's not the point here. Quibble if you want, but the facts are that straight-ins are part of the business, and they are legal, and they have right-of-way.
 
This is all part of working together. On my last outing with my safety pilot I was flying a GPS approach and made a call 10 miles out. Someone else responded on CTAF that he was downwind for the same runway and would extend his downwind and follow us in. My safety pilot says that he has the guy spotted and there is no reason he shouldn't go ahead and land in front of us so I called the guy and told him he was good to go. Hard to believe but it all worked out. :yikes:
 
Ron Levy said:
I'd have to disagree. I'll bet every one of us with an Instrument rating did a straight-in on the IR practical test.
Click to expand...

Quoting myself from a prior post:

"Clearly, there are times a straight in is called for. As an instrument instructor I've done many practice approaches that ended with a straight in approach and landing."

And, I'm not "quibbling". I'm explaining what I do and why I do it.

That's all.

Everyone else can weigh my words and then do whatever the heck they want.
 
It's always entertainment to watch the two combatants with the LEASE common sense flight it out!

Whassa matta being a good citizen and negotiating what works?
 
I don't get the conflict. Where I fly we get a mix of pattern and straight in approaches ALL the time. I've done both. I've slid (miles) in front of guys on 5 and 10 mile straight-in final, I've extended my downwind to accommodate when needed, whatever. Between commercial traffic and instrument training, it happens all the time. Where's the beef? I just don't get it. You have traffic, you communicate, cooperate, see and avoid. Seems simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top