Straight in caused a delay, std pattern would cause more

[flyingcheesehead]

A straight in approach is not the correct way to enter a pattern, especially when there is a no wind / direct crosswind situation.

Huh? Reference, please?

Yes, the planes on the ground should have been communicating with you, but there is no requirement to have a radio in a GA plane.

But these guys obviously had a radio, and were on the correct frequency, as they were talking to each other.

Had you entered the pattern on down wind you could have seen the planes using 17 and you could have corrected your pattern to use the same runway as the traffic on the ground is using.

He saw them well before he would have entered the pattern anyway. At that point, I'd have maybe made another call to see what their intentions were, or moved over to a downwind entry for 17 due solely to the crowned runway.

JMHO, you were the "aggressor" in grabbing a runway 10 miles out without knowing what who was in the area or on the ground.

You can't "grab a runway 10 miles out." You state your intentions, and if someone calls back and says "we're taxiing to 17 and will be taking off in a few minutes" then you know there's a potential conflict and can alter your plans accordingly. Stating your intentions 10 miles out hardly makes you an "aggressor."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

One thing you have to remember is that you are not required to even have a radio when flying from an uncontrolled airport. If you fly a standard pattern it gives the pilots without radio's a better chance of seeing you.(they are searching the PATTERN)
It is very hard to see an airplane on a straight in approach, so I always fly a standard pattern.

Huh? It's WAY easier, IMHO, to see airplanes on a straight-in - Look to the side, and look for a dark spot in the sky, or a light in the sky. With even a very narrow taxiway, I can (and do) turn 30 degrees to each side to check final. If downwind is behind me, I'm not checking it. If you're on downwind, I can get off the ground faster than you'll finish your pattern anyway.

 

[ted gilbertson]

I was told that if you don't follow the airports recomened pattern and cause an accident the FAA would look at that as a violation. I know some airports like santa Paula,ca have written in the airport directory that no sraight in approaches are to be made. I make them sometimes like two weeks ago when I got back from Laughlin in the 152, the winds where so bad I was the only person to land at the airport that day. I had been beat enough and didn't need any more so I called my ten mile and asked if there was any traffic in the area. I asked all the way through out my approach. I was pretty sure I was the only fool out that day so I figured it to be safe. BUT on a sunny Sunday there is way too much traffic to be doing that. The jets and king airs do lots of staight ins, sometime cutting off the little guys.
The thing about the radios bug me, if you have one use it. I ask people their intentions all the time with no answer. One guys was flying loops close to the airport and would not answer me. I could just be me but I just wish people could be a little more friendly:smile:.

 

[John Baker]

Did you ever ask him why he demanded that? There are times when that simply isn't possible, such as MVFR ceilings, overlying B-space, etc.

Ron, no. I never did. He was trained in France, perhaps that is what they do there. He did make exceptions, like at Hemet with it's gliders. I guess I should have phrased that as, "whenever possible."

John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not really qualified to give advise to all you well seasoned experts, It just seems to me that if you are approaching an uncontrolled airport, shouldn't you overfly the field at about five hundred feet above pattern? Actually look at the runways and the windsock before selecting your active?

First - Don't think of "active." Think of *every* runway as being active.

Now, think of what happens if everyone approaches the airport 500 feet above the pattern. There's gonna be a lot of aluminum and plastic raining down on the airport if everyone overflies the field 500 above the pattern! The whole purpose of a pattern is to get everyone to the runway in an orderly fashion. The TPA+500 overflight is completely un-orderly, planes could be coming from any direction. Yikes!

I choose my runway based on the AWOS and/or any traffic I hear on the CTAF. After I choose the runway, I choose the entry. Sometimes, it'll be a 45 to downwind. Sometimes, a straight in. Sometimes, a crosswind to downwind. Sometimes, even straight onto a base leg. It all depends on what will get me to the runway while being able to see other traffic, and what will keep the flow of traffic to the runway going in an orderly fashion.

I will, rarely, overfly a field. I'll do this at airports that do not have an AWOS (or any nearby, say less than 10nm away, fields with an AWOS), or fields with obstructions or questionable runway surfaces. I'll usually circle around the field, though, not fly right over it. If the runway surfaces are really questionable or there's woods/critters nearby, I'll do a low approach first. But I will NOT make it standard practice to overfly a field at TPA+500 without a good reason like the above.

When I was training, I often would overfly the field, do a teardrop turn back onto the 45 and enter downwind. Now, having considered that the overflight can put me in conflict with others coming from any direction and that during the teardrop I can see neither the field nor the pattern (in a high wing at least), I realize that it can be much safer to choose an alternative method of entering the pattern.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That made me think of something -- checking the final on "your end" (rwy 17 in this case) before taking off is pretty easy, but how often do we look at the far end for someone approaching from the other direction?

Always, absolutely, every time.

Clear left, clear right, cleared to cross the hold short line. And that goes for every runway at every airport, tower or not.

I didn't always do this, but I do now. Ever heard a controller screw up? I have. And the FAA's emphasis on runway incursions is there for a reason - And most of them are controller errors that the pilots didn't catch.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

John, in a Citation, it would be much more important to know the winds than in a 172. In a Bonanza, which is what we're talking about here, it's also more important than in a 172.

Huh?

Except for in terms of runway length, I'd think the 172 would need to know the winds more than the other two, as the 172 will be more affected by said winds.

The only reason the Citation would need to know more than the 172 is if the runway is short enough that the difference between that wind being a 10-knot headwind and a 10-knot tailwind is enough of a difference to put them off the end of the runway.

 

[John Baker]

Like approaching any non towered airport, you should announce your intentions, then listen should there be a response. Overflying the field is one of those intentions.

The lesson that I seem to be learning from this thread is to be flexible in your approach decisions. Don't get into mind lock with one particular method.

Everyone is going to get the ASOS or AWAS prior to ten miles out. At that point you should be able to have a very good idea of what runway you are using. I believe the originator of this thread said it was a no wind condition, and that is where the confusion seemed to take place. Any runway could become the active in a no wind.

I think if it was me, I would be using the UNICOM and an overflight. If you can get a hold of someone at the airport to tell you what runway is being used, that would negate an overflight.

During an approach to Thermal with my instructor, we had the information and made a normal 45 to the left downwind. We then heard a jet announce he was on a five mile straight final for the same runway. We pulled out of the pattern to the right and circled until he landed. That was my instructors decision. He explained that it would cost us much less in fuel to do that than to make the jet do a go around. He called it common courtesy.

John

 

[docmirror]

The lesson that I seem to be learning from this thread is to be flexible in your approach decisions. Don't get into mind lock with one particular method.

Everyone is going to get the ASOS or AWAS prior to ten miles out. At that point you should be able to have a very good idea of what runway you are using. I believe the originator of this thread said it was a no wind condition, and that is where the confusion seemed to take place. Any runway could become the active in a no wind.

That is very true. At 5 mi out I still had options to switch to a downwind or std entry for 17 if needed. Since I didn't hear anything back after their discussion about the wind sock, I kept coming. One thing that confuses this case is that the FBO is very close to the 17 end of the runway. Therefore, a lot of pilots may assume that 17 is by default the runway 'in use' (not active, I know). My decision to land on 35 was just for convenience, and not a matter of being less safe, but it could be construed that way with traffic waiting at 17.

On reflection, next time I'm going to ask traffic waiting if they want to depart or hold, or say intentions or something so we're all reading from the same script.

 

[gismo]

There's nothing inherently incorrect in a straight in approach.

Nor is there any requirement to use the same runway as another airplane landing or departing from the same airport.

 

[gismo]

On reflection, next time I'm going to ask traffic waiting if they want to depart or hold, or say intentions or something so we're all reading from the same script.

That's exactly what I'd have done. I'd even suggest that they can take off towards me if I'm sure there's time/room. Giving your ETE (e.g. still 5 minutes from touchdown) might help as well. I'm all for keeping superfulous traffic off the radio but there's nothing wrong with "conversating" about potential pattern conflicts and resolutions.

 

[gprellwitz]

My CFI hates plane-to-plane conversation on the CTAF but he's nuts.

Coordinating an approach between two (or more) planes may be conversation, but there's no way anyone should be against it. It's what the radios are for! (OTOH, asking if this is the first time in months that someone's been flying or if they want to get together later SHOULD be verboten!)

On reflection, next time I'm going to ask traffic waiting if they want to depart or hold, or say intentions or something so we're all reading from the same script.

That's exactly what I'd have done. I'd even suggest that they can take off towards me if I'm sure there's time/room. Giving your ETE (e.g. still 5 minutes from touchdown) might help as well. I'm all for keeping superfulous traffic off the radio but there's nothing wrong with "conversating" about potential pattern conflicts and resolutions.

I agree. If everyone's on radio, work it out amongst yourselves with brief transmissions. But still keep your eyes peeled for those who don't have radios!

 

[timwinters]

But still keep your eyes peeled for those who don't have radios!

Or simply take Diana along as a co-pilot. She can spot traffic in the next state!

 

[Diana]

Or simply take Diana along as a co-pilot. She can spot traffic in the next state!

Out of self-defense. Besides, you never know where some people really are in the pattern.

 

[timwinters]

Besides, you never know where some people really are in the pattern.

I guess there are certain events a person can never live down, eh!?

 

[Diana]

I guess there are certain events a person can never live down, eh!?

But, at least I'll never tell.

 

[Geico266]

That is very true. At 5 mi out I still had options to switch to a downwind or std entry for 17 if needed. Since I didn't hear anything back after their discussion about the wind sock, I kept coming. One thing that confuses this case is that the FBO is very close to the 17 end of the runway. Therefore, a lot of pilots may assume that 17 is by default the runway 'in use' (not active, I know). My decision to land on 35 was just for convenience, and not a matter of being less safe, but it could be construed that way with traffic waiting at 17.

On reflection, next time I'm going to ask traffic waiting if they want to depart or hold, or say intentions or something so we're all reading from the same script.

Good reflection of the situation Doc. Pause, reflect, learn, adjust where needed, and move on. I'm pretty sure this will need at lease another 4-5 hours in the air to test out your newly honed situational awareness skills.

Keep the oily side down.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was told that if you don't follow the airports recomened pattern and cause an accident the FAA would look at that as a violation.

Told by whom, and with what legal reference? I've seen the FAA violate pilots who flew right traffic where a left pattern is published (Administrator v. Boardman), and pilots who cut off a plane doing a straight in (Administrator v. Fekete), neither involving an accident, but I've never seen a case where the FAA wrote someone up for doing something other than the recommended 45-downwind pattern entry as long as it didn't violate 91.126(a) or 91.113(g).

I know some airports like santa Paula,ca have written in the airport directory that no sraight in approaches are to be made.

Here's the current A/FD entry for KSZP:

SANTA PAULA

(SZP) 1 SE UTC8(7DT) N34°20.83W119°03.67LOS ANGELES

​

​

245 S4 ​

​

FUEL 80, 100LL TPA—845(600) COPTER

RWY 04–22: ​

​

H2665X60 (ASPH) S–8

​

​

RWY 04: ​

​

Thld dsplcd 130. Building. Rgt tfc. RWY 22: Thld dsplcd 233. Trees.

​

​

AIRPORT REMARKS: ​

​

Attended 1600–0100Z‡. 24 hour self fueling with all major credit cards. Ultralights, banner

towing, gliders, remote control models operating in the vicinity. Daily aerobatic activity 3–18 miles E up to 5255
AGL. Ngt operations prohibited.
​

​

COMMUNICATIONS: CTAF ​

​

122.9

​

​

HAWTHORNE FSS ​

​

(HHR) TF 1–800–WX–BRIEF. NOTAM FILE HHR.

​

​

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
HELIPAD H1: ​

​

H60X60 (ASPH)
HELIPORT REMARKS: H1 surface loose gravel and dirt. Heliport markings obliterated.
​

I don't see any pattern restrictions other than right traffic on Rwy 4 (no doubt to keep the noise on the side away from town), and if it isn't in the A/FD, to the FAA, it isn't official. But your point on checking the A/FD for any local restrictions on patterns is well-taken.

The thing about the radios bug me, if you have one use it. I ask people their intentions all the time with no answer. One guys was flying loops close to the airport and would not answer me. I could just be me but I just wish people could be a little more friendly:smile:.

Hear, hear!
​

 

[WenEng]

My. My. Just getting back into flying again after 10 years and it looks like things don't change. IMHO it is always the right thing to do to use the pattern. 1) Pattern work always makes you a better pilot. 2). Safety is number one always 3) It was always thought that straight in finals interrupted the spaced traffic flow that pattern approaches provided. There are probably a lot more things I will soon remember. The one that sticks is it was usually the hot shot uncooperative pilot hangared at my local airport that was the ''problem'' for all the rest of us there. I am sure there's a place for straight ins but I recall a recent RV-7 flight into Boulder City where two straight ins disregarded the rather busy pattern work and forced extended downwinds and bases for the others. Just a thought.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, no. I never did. He was trained in France, perhaps that is what they do there.

Perhaps. Canada has a regulation (not just a recommendation) that the only way to enter the pattern from the opposite side is via the mid-field crossover. It's a rule I don't like, but I don't pay taxes or vote there, so who am I to argue?

 

[poadeleted20]

My. My. Just getting back into flying again after 10 years and it looks like things don't change. IMHO it is always the right thing to do to use the pattern. 1) Pattern work always makes you a better pilot. 2). Safety is number one always 3) It was always thought that straight in finals interrupted the spaced traffic flow that pattern approaches provided.

I won't argue the philosophy of 1) and 2), but 3) has no legal basis. In fact, 91.113(g) gives right of way to aircraft on final over aircraft on the downwind. See the Fekete case linked above.

I am sure there's a place for straight ins but I recall a recent RV-7 flight into Boulder City where two straight ins disregarded the rather busy pattern work and forced extended downwinds and bases for the others.

As was their legal right (disregarding any potential etiqutte issues). Read 91.113(g) again carefully for the law on the subject. Aircraft in the pattern must space themselves around aircraft on final (even a long final). That's not saying they have to extend downwind to get behind someone on a 10-mile final, but unless they can turn base, land, and clear the runway before the straight-in arrives at the threshold, they must extend and follow the straight-in.

(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.

 

[ScottPA]

Have to love those 5 and 10 mile finals.

 

[WenEng]

Capn Ron. Thanks for the feedback. Again, IMHO everything simply cannot be accounted for by law. A transient pilot should not perform a straight in at an uncontrolled field. A home-based pilot has an advantage with familiarity but I recall straight ins usually were thought of by regulars as inconsiderate, especially if it occurs during busy times I will admit to straight ins when I flew in the evenings and returned to my quiet airport. But, I will always do a pattern approach at other fields. The time is inconsequential. The look down confirms many safety issues and I place high value on etiquette. Else we continue to sit at the airport diner saying, ''Here comes 10 mile Ted. What a jerk":smile:

 

[ted gilbertson]

Well Ron it may have been more bad advice from flight instructors. A guy I used to fly ultalights with used to have me enter the down wind from a cross wind, when I did this in a cessna my instructor told me that I could be in violation if I caused any problems doing that. Thats where I heard it.

And with KSZP both of my airport directorys say "no straight in apchs, no over head apchs,no 45 entries and no crosswind enteries over rwy"
So if that is what the directory states and you don't follow them would that be a violation according to the FAA?

 

[EdFred]

I want to be in the pattern (or in the vicinity of an airport) as little as possible, so I will almost always select the quickest legal way to the runway of my choosing.

About 10 miles out, I will start to set myself up as follows:

I hate putting my back to the airport, so I will rarely if ever do an out and back for the 45° downwind entry. If a straight in will "disrupt" the pattern, i will adjust speed, or enter an upwind to the pattern.

 

[EdFred]

And with KSZP both of my airport directorys say "no straight in apchs, no over head apchs,no 45 entries and no crosswind enteries over rwy"
So if that is what the directory states and you don't follow them would that be a violation according to the FAA?

What directory is that?

From the November FAA database:

ULTRALIGHTS; BANNER TOWING; GLIDERS; RC MODELS OPER IN THE VICINITY.
DAILY AEROBATIC ACTIVITY 3-18 MILES EAST UP TO 5,255 FT AGL.
NIGHT OPNS PROHIBITED.
+4 FT SIGN & +2 FT WALL IN PRIMARY SFC AT NE END OF ARPT.



Now, at Lake Havasu (KHII) we do have a published restriction:

NOISE ABATEMENT - STRAIGHT-IN STRAIGHT-OUT APCH/DEP PROHIBITED. ENTER PATTERN USING 45 DEG ENTRY TO DOWNWIND. DO NOT OVERFLY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES S/SW OF ARPT. POWER LINES/TOWERS & HIGH TERRAIN N/NE OF ARPT.

 

[EdFred]

Have to love those 5 and 10 mile finals.

Yep, because flying a pattern at my airport in the summer has us dodging jumpers. So, what woudl you rather do? Land straight in, or have a parachute wrapped over your tail?

 

[poadeleted20]

A transient pilot should not perform a straight in at an uncontrolled field.

Why not?

A home-based pilot has an advantage with familiarity but I recall straight ins usually were thought of by regulars as inconsiderate,

Why? I'll take up more time and space in the pattern by joining it than by doing a straight-in.

Else we continue to sit at the airport diner saying, ''Here comes 10 mile Ted. What a jerk":smile:

There are also those who might call those who use that epithet about folks flying straight-ins "pattern Nazis." However, your point about courtesy is appropriate -- if we call work together and communicate among ourselves, there's no need for anyone to be a jerk or a Nazi.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well Ron it may have been more bad advice from flight instructors. A guy I used to fly ultalights with used to have me enter the down wind from a cross wind, when I did this in a cessna my instructor told me that I could be in violation if I caused any problems doing that. Thats where I heard it.

I wish we could go back to that day and have your instructor point to the regulation being violated. It might be a long wait while s/he looked for something that isn't there.

And with KSZP both of my airport directorys say "no straight in apchs, no over head apchs,no 45 entries and no crosswind enteries over rwy" So if that is what the directory states and you don't follow them would that be a violation according to the FAA?

I don't know what directories you're looking at, but the only one that counts to the FAA is the A/FD, whose entry for KSZP is posted above, and that does not have those restrictions. Thus, no FAA rules violation for doing any of those things. If the airport manager wants those to be rules, s/he needs to submit them to the FAA for publication as described on the inside cover of the A/FD. Until then, in the FAA's eyes, they do not exist.

 

[ted gilbertson]

I have a a/fd from the dot and aopa but they are about a year old maybe things have changed. I just checked on airnav.com and it doesn't say anything about those restrictions,very strange. Wonder my my books say that.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have a a/fd from the dot and aopa

The AOPA Airport Directory is not official. What's an "a/fd from the dot"? Is that a California state agency publication? If so, it's also unofficial in the FAA's eyes. The only official publication in this context is the so-called "green book," the Airport/Facility Directory published by the FAA's National Aeronautical Charting Office (NACO). Here's a link to the on-line version of the A/FD: http://www.avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_afd

 

[ted gilbertson]

I have a united states goverment flight information publication
airport/facility directory for the southwest U.S.
with the seal for the dot and for the faa
and the book is green.
Is mine just out dated and the info has been changed?

 

[alaskaflyer]

Capn Ron. Thanks for the feedback. Again, IMHO everything simply cannot be accounted for by law. A transient pilot should not perform a straight in at an uncontrolled field. A home-based pilot has an advantage with familiarity but I recall straight ins usually were thought of by regulars as inconsiderate, especially if it occurs during busy times I will admit to straight ins when I flew in the evenings and returned to my quiet airport. But, I will always do a pattern approach at other fields. The time is inconsequential. The look down confirms many safety issues and I place high value on etiquette. Else we continue to sit at the airport diner saying, ''Here comes 10 mile Ted. What a jerk":smile:

I am not agreeing with you but I believe more than any other post this might explain the perceived jerk factor in the OP.

 

[roncachamp]

I have a united states goverment flight information publication
airport/facility directory for the southwest U.S.
with the seal for the dot and for the faa
and the book is green.
Is mine just out dated and the info has been changed?

Look on the cover, right below "SOUTHWEST U.S." If it's current it will have "EFFECTIVE 0901Z 20 NOV 2008 TO 0901Z 15 JAN 2009".

 

[poadeleted20]

I have a united states goverment flight information publication
airport/facility directory for the southwest U.S.
with the seal for the dot and for the faa
and the book is green.
Is mine just out dated and the info has been changed?

I don't know -- what are the effective dates on the cover (the A/FD is updated/replaced every 56 days), and can you perhaps scan the entry for KSZP to compare to what's on the FAA/NACO web site which I copied above?

 

[ted gilbertson]

I know its expired I just was wondering if the new one excluded the info I was talking about earlier.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know its expired I just was wondering if the new one excluded the info I was talking about earlier.

It sure does -- see what I posted from the current edition in post #58, above. Just how old is your copy? In any event, this brings home the importance of carrying and using current aeronautical publications. And anticipating your next question ("Why did it change?"), only the airport manager can explain that.

 

[Ghery]

It sure does -- see what I posted from the current edition in post #58, above. Just how old is your copy? In any event, this brings home the importance of carrying and using current aeronautical publications. And anticipating your next question ("Why did it change?"), only the airport manager can explain that.

Which is why a new one shows up in my mailbox every 56 days from Sporty's. And a new SEA sectional and TAC twice a year. And the WAC for the northwest every year. And low altitude enroutes when published. And... You get the idea. I'm paranoid about having out of date stuff in my flight bag.

 

[ted gilbertson]

Ya guess I should replace them. I never carry an expired sectional in my flight bag, so the a/fd shouldn't be any different. Still learning that the fun thing about flying. Thanks guys:smile:

 

[ggroves]

JMHO, you were the "aggressor" in grabbing a runway 10 miles out without knowing what who was in the area or on the ground.

Oh the drama...

10 miles out...even 5 miles out gives you plenty of room to depart. If you're sitting on the ramp waiting and burning fuel...it's all on you.

Doc, you did fine. "Mav" and "Ice" could have made their fighter jet wannabe formation takeoff with no interference from you.