Straight in finals..is that a good idea?

That works, IF you can think and plan far enough ahead to slot yourself in.

And not come screaming into the pattern, with trainers circulating, at 180 KIAS
 
flyingcheesehead said:
"Fly the pattern every time" is just silly anyway, it's rare for me to ever encounter another aircraft in the air at an uncontrolled field. :( So, I generally enter the pattern, or not, in whatever way is gonna get me on the ground the quickest.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, pilots need to be flexible, and be able to adapt to changing conditions.

On the other hand, there’s a very strong case to be made for STANDARD Operating Procedures. The airline’s safety records bears that out, and much GA training has moved to that approach. If everyone “rolls their own” when arriving at a non-towered airport, it may very well work for them for their entire flying career, so there’s that - other pilots will accommodate them, albeit sometimes grudgingly. But it inevitably causes more confusion compared to all pilots flying the FAA recommended pattern whenever practicable. And while midairs are statistically rare, they would be even rarer if pilots just made the minimal effort to fly in a standardized way.
 
FastEddieB said:
On the one hand, pilots need to be flexible, and be able to adapt to changing conditions.

On the other hand, there’s a very strong case to be made for STANDARD Operating Procedures. The airline’s safety records bears that out, and much GA training has moved to that approach. If everyone “rolls their own” when arriving at a non-towered airport, it may very well work for them for their entire flying career, so there’s that - other pilots will accommodate them, albeit sometimes grudgingly. But it inevitably causes more confusion compared to all pilots flying the FAA recommended pattern whenever practicable. And while midairs are statistically rare, they would be even rarer if pilots just made the minimal effort to fly in a standardized way.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean by putting your back to the airport, and going against right of way rules? Yeah, great standardization. There isn't an eyeroll emoji to demonstrate how idiotic the "standard" way is. I don't know what's worse, the procedure itself, or the embracing of the stupidity.
 
Anti-authority: “Don’t tell me!”

Pilots with an anti-authority attitude tend to believe that rules, regulations, and safety procedures don’t apply to them. For example, an anti-authority pilot may neglect their checklists or refuse to take advice from instructors or ATC. Be advised that having an anti-authority attitude is different from simply questioning authority. Pilots always have the prerogative to speak up to authority if they believe a mistake has been made.
 
FastEddieB said:
Anti-authority: “Don’t tell me!”

Pilots with an anti-authority attitude tend to believe that rules, regulations, and safety procedures don’t apply to them. For example, an anti-authority pilot may neglect their checklists or refuse to take advice from instructors or ATC. Be advised that having an anti-authority attitude is different from simply questioning authority. Pilots always have the prerogative to speak up to authority if they believe a mistake has been made.
Click to expand...

The irony is thick considering the over-fly-put-your-back-to-the-airport-is not about safety at all, along with the dismissal of repeated advice from an instructor of WHY it is unsafe.
 
We all know straight-in’s are one of aviations most dangerous maneuvers. It’s something about not making any turns at all and just pointing the nose at the runway that makes it so risky!

:stirpot:
 
EdFred said:
The irony is thick considering the over-fly-put-your-back-to-the-airport-is not about safety at all, along with the dismissal of repeated advice from an instructor of WHY it is unsafe.
Click to expand...

It is fine, IF you do it the way it says. Fly out, descend, THEN turn to the 45. If you offset for the turn, it puts you out of the way of other inbound. And once you descend, others at pattern altitude are easier to see.

Too many people turn and descend, and that can be a very bad thing.
 
Pinecone said:
It is fine, IF you do it the way it says. Fly out, descend, THEN turn to the 45. If you offset for the turn, it puts you out of the way of other inbound. And once you descend, others at pattern altitude are easier to see.

Too many people turn and descend, and that can be a very bad thing.
Click to expand...

You're still putting your back to the airport and losing sight of everyone and everything that's going on. It's like playing shortstop, turning your back to the batter, and when you hear the crack of the bat, you turn and hope you see the ball in time. When you put your back to the airport, do you see everything that changed? No, because your back is to the airport. Once I have the environment in my sight, that's where it stays. Why would I acquire everything, then try and reacquire it? There's a person flight tight patterns you missed, or someone flying longer or, wider, or whatever. You just lost sight of all of that. That's why i think it is an idiotic procedure. If you're on the anticipated "wrong side" just fly the upwind, and keep everything in sight and make pattern leg length adjustemnts from there. And if the sock indicates a different runway, adjust. No reason to leave the environment.

The ony reason anyone ever gives for the 45 is "because dad said so." Well, dad is sometimes an idiot.
 
If you look back on much earlier descriptions of pattern entry you can see the intent of establishing an approach procedure with all turns to the left and then an entry to the downwind on a 45 degree angle to establish a rectangular landing pattern. (Thanks to dturri for digging up this old photo years ago. Even at Oshkosh, a similar circling method is used (with radios) to establish an orderly landing procedure.) I think it's easy to see how this would work well with planes of similar approach speeds, many if not most without radios. EVERYONE approaching the airport gets a good look at the airport environment and can look for "any traffic in the pattern".

As aircraft radios became more common and instrument approaches were developed, planes also became faster and more complex, necessitating control towers at some airports and a whole air traffic control system. At some point it becomes more practical to allow faster planes to land straight-in, just as they do at a towered field, but the only way to do that is to clearly define a ROW by position of the approaching aircraft. Giving the ROW to the aircraft on the straight in forces aircraft in the pattern to adjust their position with the least amount of disruption to the flow, because otherwise the approaching (fast) plane on final has to to SOMETHING to re-enter the pattern, but its operating speed by necessity is going to require a wider radius to somehow enter the downwind and may create even more chaos on attempting to land, which is why I think it's necessary to permit straight in approaches, at least for faster aircraft.


But maybe the regulation should prohibit straight in approaches for aircraft with a stall speed below a certain defined number? That would force certain make and models from legally performing straight ins and force slower aircraft to enter the pattern "normally".


Old pattern.jpg
 
RyanB said:
Not necessarily at all, considering there could be other inbound traffic onto the 45 from opposite direction. I’m with @EdFred, the teardrop to enter the 45 is beyond stupid.
Click to expand...
Interesting and I haven't thought about it that way. Seems like just as risky if not more then going straight in. What would you propose?
 
EdFred said:
I have proposed that one enter on a "corner" of a pattern, and fly however many legs are necessary. No over flying the field at all.
Click to expand...

I'd go for that, although I think that the corner from downwind to base might be a common issue. Personally, I like the upwind entry, even if approaching from a potential straight in and certainly from approaching on the non-pattern side where a specific runway seems to be in use. An upwind entry gives the pilot a good, wide view of the pattern, a good look at a windsock, and a good look at the entire runway environment. It also makes you more visible to other aircraft as you make the turns required to complete the approach.
 
dbahn said:
I'd go for that, although I think that the corner from downwind to base might be a common issue. Personally, I like the upwind entry, even if approaching from a potential straight in and certainly from approaching on the non-pattern side where a specific runway seems to be in use. An upwind entry gives the pilot a good, wide view of the pattern, a good look at a windsock, and a good look at the entire runway environment. It also makes you more visible to other aircraft as you make the turns required to complete the approach.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's easy enough to alter your course 10 miles out.
 
FastEddieB said:
On the other hand, there’s a very strong case to be made for STANDARD Operating Procedures. The airline’s safety records bears that out,
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that SOPs rarely extend to the topic of always flying a full traffic pattern, and, if traffic patterns are addressed, they normally allow straight-ins.
 
RyanB said:
Not necessarily at all, considering there could be other inbound traffic onto the 45 from opposite direction. I’m with @EdFred, the teardrop to enter the 45 is beyond stupid.
Click to expand...

That's why I said to OFFSET for the turn. A standard rate turn at 90 KIAS is about 1 NM. So you would be at least 1 NM to the left of the inbound traffic, until you are at pattern altitude.
 
dbahn said:
I'd go for that, although I think that the corner from downwind to base might be a common issue. Personally, I like the upwind entry, even if approaching from a potential straight in and certainly from approaching on the non-pattern side where a specific runway seems to be in use. An upwind entry gives the pilot a good, wide view of the pattern, a good look at a windsock, and a good look at the entire runway environment. It also makes you more visible to other aircraft as you make the turns required to complete the approach.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Palmpilot said:
I've forgotten: Is that from an old version of the AIM?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. Dtuuri posted that a long time ago on the Red Board, and it's from an old FAA document of some kind, but might even have preceded the actual AIM publication, which I believe was first published in 1964.
 
So it's ok to enter the pattern straight in to a base leg?

edited over grammar....
 
Last edited:
Mxfarm said:
So is ok to enter the pattern straight in to a base leg?
Click to expand...

I do that nearly every time I come back to my home drome from the south. (RWY 30 is into prevailing winds)
 
Lowflynjack said:
I'm not wasting my fuel to go into a pattern, straight in or nothing for me. I've found if you get on the radio and call dibs on the runway, everyone else will clear the area for you.

For that matter, I'm not wasting fuel to taxi to the other end of the runway to take off into the wind. I'll go to the nearest runway every time, I have a 182 and I don't need much runway and certainly don't need wind on the nose! Sometimes I take off straight out of my hangar, but that doesn't leave me much room to clear the hangar across from me.

I also think that if everyone is looking for traffic it's a waste of time. If you're looking, why should I? I'll look at the runway, or Facebook, and you look out for me. Much more efficient.
Click to expand...

That was you! I think we've shared airspace more than a few times! :D

(I woulda washed my plane's belly had I known...)
 
Mxfarm said:
So it's ok to enter the pattern straight in to a base leg?
Click to expand...

You're the POC and the FAA does not regulate pattern entry.

Do what you want and don't hit nobody else.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I'm not wasting my fuel to go into a pattern, straight in or nothing for me. I've found if you get on the radio and call dibs on the runway, everyone else will clear the area for you.

For that matter, I'm not wasting fuel to taxi to the other end of the runway to take off into the wind. I'll go to the nearest runway every time, I have a 182 and I don't need much runway and certainly don't need wind on the nose! Sometimes I take off straight out of my hangar, but that doesn't leave me much room to clear the hangar across from me.

I also think that if everyone is looking for traffic it's a waste of time. If you're looking, why should I? I'll look at the runway, or Facebook, and you look out for me. Much more efficient.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a real cropduster. Except for the radio part. They don't do that.
 
bflynn said:
You're the POC and the FAA does not regulate pattern entry.

Do what you want and don't hit nobody else.
Click to expand...
I’ll probably stick w/I’ve been doing (when not talking to atc) as needed, upwind, crosswind, downwind, base, final, while listening to radio and looking outside.
 
I was doing a 5m straight in approach couple days ago to an uncontrolled field with no taxiways. Cessna radioed that he was entering a right downwind for the same runway. I probably would have beat him to the runway, but why bother? I told him I was going to do some 360s and then come in after him. I'd have to wait for him to back taxi, but so what. Just cause I had the faster plane doesn't mean I had to have the right of way. Life doesn't have to be difficult.
 
Mxfarm said:
So it's ok to enter the pattern straight in to a base leg?

edited over grammar....
Click to expand...

People do it, of course, but I personally think it's a very bad idea. Ironically, if you are at the same altitude as the aircraft on downwind in a left hand pattern then technically (as the aircraft on the right converging at the same altitude) you have the right of way over the aircraft on downwind. But, if you do that in a right hand pattern then you (on base) have to yield to the downwind aircraft, who will be converging from the right. Weird, and I don't think anybody actually does that (I don't and won't) but there is nothing in the regulation that gives an aircraft "in the pattern" the ROW over an aircraft entering the pattern - except on final. There are a lot of pilots who believe that being in the pattern gives them the ROW, almost regardless of where they are in the pattern, but that's not the case by regulation.

The bottom line in all of this is to put courtesy ahead of FAA regs - as long as being nice doesn't itself cause a hazardous condition.
 
EdFred said:
So can I expect you to clean the **** out of my upholstery when I gotta go and I dare ask you to extend your downwind 10 seconds, and you're like "no I was here first."

Maybe it's a coastal entitlement thing, but here in **** you country when I'm on straight in, I am offered to "cut in line" way more often than not. In fact, I've never had anyone pull your attitude. I also, always give way to someone on a straight in.
Click to expand...


Well, aren’t you entitled? Straight-ins are nowhere in the VFR regs for ROW, especially miles out. I’ll gladly give way if somebody asks. But claiming “straight-in final” 5 miles out & expecting the chickens in the pattern to scatter is silly.
 
rhkennerly said:
Well, aren’t you entitled? Straight-ins are nowhere in the VFR regs for ROW, especially miles out. I’ll gladly give way if somebody asks. But claiming “straight-in final” 5 miles out & expecting the chickens in the pattern to scatter is silly.
Click to expand...

I agree. Which is why nobody expects that except the relatively rare turbine mixing it up with the bugsmashers.
 
rhkennerly said:
show me in the FAR regarding airfield pattern anticollsion guidance where "straight-in" is even mentioned for VFR concerning ROW. That's the problem.
Click to expand...
91.113
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories -

(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.

91.126
(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace -

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and

91.127
(a) Unless otherwise required by part 93 of this chapter or unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class E airspace area, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class E airspace area must comply with the requirements of § 91.126.

Vicinity has been defined in case law as (at least) 3 miles out.

Now show me the regulation that says traffic in the pattern has the right of way.
 
Last edited:
rhkennerly said:
Well, aren’t you entitled? Straight-ins are nowhere in the VFR regs for ROW, especially miles out. I’ll gladly give way if somebody asks. But claiming “straight-in final” 5 miles out & expecting the chickens in the pattern to scatter is silly.
Click to expand...

I'll send you the bill for the upholstery because YOU feel that planes in the pattern have the absolute ROW.

Address please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top