Straight in finals..is that a good idea?

EdFred said:
*sigh* You're just being deliberately obtuse. We are talking a 150 in the pattern turning to final. Going from base to final, that final should only be a few seconds. I can't believe I have to explain that. No, actually, now that I think about it, I can believe it.
Click to expand...
There are ways to deal with obtuseness

 
It’s subjective, that simple. What’s the official definition of right of way? Someone reports 5 mile straight in and an aircraft turns in front of them, are they violating right of way rules? I’ve never heard of right of way implying an aircraft on final must have a sterile flight path all the way to the runway.
 
Salty said:
Bottom line, it's never going to be safe to turn in front of a 340 doing 180 knots. You'd never be able to see it in time.

Frankly, if any regulation change is needed, it's a speed limit for entering the pattern based on class size within 3-5 miles of an airport. There's simply never any reason to be going that fast, that close to the runway in a 340. Even when you're leading a heavy on final, you have to slow down before landing. If you can't slow down to a safe pattern speed then somebody should be going around.
Click to expand...

But how do you know that the 340 is doing 180 knots? Most pilots would assume that an aircraft on straight in would be at most around 100 knots, and probably under that.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So again, what kind of bomber pattern was the 152 flying that had him more than 3 minutes from the runway when he turned base?
Click to expand...

If you watch some of the videos about it, the 152 pilot seemed to actually turning final, not turning base when he made the radio call.

And he saw the other plane, saw the closure, and decided to go around. What we don't know is if the 340 also decided to go around, setting up the collision.
 
Pinecone said:
If you watch some of the videos about it, the 152 pilot seemed to actually turning final, not turning base when he made the radio call.

And he saw the other plane, saw the closure, and decided to go around. What we don't know is if the 340 also decided to go around, setting up the collision.
Click to expand...
See my sig line.
 
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, 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...

I can tell you that our SOPs do NOT require flying the traffic pattern. The "standard" for a traffic pattern is that it's always left turns unless otherwise specified, and the names of the legs are well known. That allows us all to work together to not swap paint and bend metal.

EdFred said:
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.
Click to expand...

This. The overhead pass to a teardrop to a 45 is a terrible idea, and is also not mentioned in any FAA documentation (only the 45 is). Most people do it at TPA+500 which is generally AT the pattern altitude of the fast movers, where they're probably not going to see much traffic anyway if there's much of anything on the ground besides farm fields. They put their back to everything, start maneuvering in a place where you can see nothing, and then have to pick up all the traffic while on the 45. Inserting yourself into the downwind like this isn't really any safer than inserting yourself at any other arbitrary point in the traffic pattern - Maybe there's a conflicting aircraft where you're entering and maybe there isn't, and either way you have to resolve it.

The far better way, IMO, if you're approaching from that sort of angle - Say, you're flying North to your destination which is using runway 9 - Is to enter on a crosswind. That keeps the field and all the traffic on the pilot's side of the airplane in good view for the entire time.

If you're in a position to go straight in, go straight in, unless there's conflicting traffic in which case you can enter on the upwind, preferably offset a little to the right, and fly around the pattern with the same advantages.

If you enter on the downwind and there's opposite direction traffic landing straight in, negotiate who's going first and either they can enter the upwind at TPA as described above and you land, or you let them go straight in and extend your downwind slightly to come in behind them. And technically, if you disagree, the guy on final has ROW. This isn't hard. :dunno:

BOTH pilots were in the wrong in the crash - The twin wasn't ready to land and was going far faster than he should have been, and the single cut off an aircraft on final approach.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
This. The overhead pass to a teardrop to a 45 is a terrible idea, and is also not mentioned in any FAA documentation (only the 45 is). Most people do it at TPA+500 which is generally AT the pattern altitude of the fast movers, where they're probably not going to see much traffic anyway if there's much of anything on the ground besides farm fields. They put their back to everything, start maneuvering in a place where you can see nothing, and then have to pick up all the traffic while on the 45. Inserting yourself into the downwind like this isn't really any safer than inserting yourself at any other arbitrary point in the traffic pattern - Maybe there's a conflicting aircraft where you're entering and maybe there isn't, and either way you have to resolve it.
.
Click to expand...

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...iation/airplane_handbook/media/09_afh_ch7.pdf

Figure 7-4
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ugh. The stupidity is spreading.

BTW, the entry they show on the right of that is how they do it in Canada.
Click to expand...

It’s sometimes comments like this that makes me wonder, holy ****, people flying around me are so arrogant they don’t really give a **** about regulations, or procedures or anything at all. How do they even pass a checkride? No wonder we have mid air collisions in a ****ing towered airport because everyone really does whatever they want.
 
Feh said:
It’s sometimes comments like this that makes me wonder, holy ****, people flying around me are so arrogant they don’t really give a **** about regulations, or procedures or anything at all. How do they even pass a checkride? No wonder we have mid air collisions in a ****ing towered airport because everyone really does whatever they want.
Click to expand...
What regulation requires an overhead pass to a teardrop to a 45?
 
Feh said:
It’s sometimes comments like this that makes me wonder, holy ****, people flying around me are so arrogant they don’t really give a **** about regulations, or procedures or anything at all.
Click to expand...

I think the best solution is to follow FAA recommended procedures whenever practicable, while at the same time assuming many other pilots will not be. And looking out for them.
 
Evidently if the FAA says to jump off a cliff, there will always be idiots who are ready to jump without question.

I think we also found the "I was just following orders" crowd.
 
francisco collazos said:
Well most have heard of the midair collision at Watsonville where a twin doing 180kt on a straight in final hit a 152 doing pattern work. My question is there is alot of ambiguity on which person has the right of way. We know generally the lower aircraft has the ROW but also aircraft on final. BUt what constitutes a final? 3mi, 5mi?
Does anyone think that the FAA should clean up the rules as to not allow for straight in approaches but under certain circumstances i.e IFR? Fast airplanes (c130's, lears, etc) especially in uncontrolled airports. I am finishing up my PPL (checkride hopefully at the end of the month) and really would worry about flying in my Class D airport but the more I fly out into nontowered airports the more I am really glad I am flying out of a towered airport.
Click to expand...
I was taught to enter a standard pattern unless there is a control tower.
 
Last edited:
Feh said:
It’s sometimes comments like this that makes me wonder, holy ****, people flying around me are so arrogant they don’t really give a **** about regulations, or procedures or anything at all. How do they even pass a checkride? No wonder we have mid air collisions in a ****ing towered airport because everyone really does whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Oh please. I care a lot about regulations. An overhead teardrop to a pattern entry is not a regulation. In fact, if you want to get really technical, the 45 degree entry goes against the letter of the regulation because it's a right turn in a left pattern. :p

And I have to pass a checkride every six months. I take aviation safety very seriously because it's literally my job. The overhead teardrop is just not the safest way to enter the pattern.
 
I think a big part of the problem is people passing judgement on all these "non-regulatory" FAA documents, like the AIM and AC90-66b without really studying and understanding them.

Things like when doing the preferred crossing midfield from the upwind side turn onto the 45, being at least 500' above pattern altitude all the way to 2 full miles beyond the runway before descending, and then turning back.

And, then the crossing midfield from the upwind side, for a direct entry (alternate method) to the downwind, should be AT PATTERN ALTITUDE. And, it should yield to other downwind traffic.

I see pilots regularly making descending "tear-drop" turns to something like a close-in 45 that frankly scares the crap out of me. Thats just as bad as doing a "360 turn for spacing" in the pattern. Who the heck thinks this is OK to do?

Another fun one is the folks that call the 45 when they're pointing right at the crosswind leg of the pattern. The intention of the 45 is that your track over the ground should have you pointed at the downwind threshold (the numbers of the runway you intend to land on) from about 3 miles away until you turn to the downwind AT MID FIELD LENGTH, with about 1/2 to 3/4 miles lateral distance from the runway. If you're turning downwind abeam the upwind numbers, you're conflicting with crosswind traffic right at the moment you're turning and they're turning >> You can't see each other!
 
wilkersk said:
I think a big part of the problem is people passing judgement on all these "non-regulatory" FAA documents, like the AIM and AC90-66b without really studying and understanding them.

Things like when doing the preferred crossing midfield from the upwind side turn onto the 45, being at least 500' above pattern altitude all the way to 2 full miles beyond the runway before descending, and then turning back.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with their diagram, and your description, and thus most pilots' understanding of the maneuver, is that there are two very important words missing.

At least 500' above THE HIGHEST pattern altitude. Many pilots will just fly right over at 1500 AGL and do their teardrop, not realizing that the standard TPA for bigger/faster/twin/turbine traffic is usually 1500 AGL. Like any TPA, sometimes that's published (you'll see an arrow to the right of the TPA listed in ForeFlight that shows all pattern altitudes if it is published), sometimes it's unpublished and that's just standard.

Now, imagine the big twin/turboprop/jet coming in on downwind at their TPA, and you coming in with a Cessna at your TPA+500. Kaboom.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Now, imagine the big twin/turboprop/jet coming in on downwind at their TPA, and you coming in with a Cessna at your TPA+500.
Click to expand...
Then imagine being on downwind in a jet, having to take evasive maneuvers to avoid the Cessna, and being told by the Cessna pilot (upon politely mentioning it on the ground afterwards), “my instructor told me to do it this way, and he would know if it should be done differently.”
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The biggest problem with their diagram, and your description, and thus most pilots' understanding of the maneuver, is that there are two very important words missing.

At least 500' above THE HIGHEST pattern altitude. Many pilots will just fly right over at 1500 AGL and do their teardrop, not realizing that the standard TPA for bigger/faster/twin/turbine traffic is usually 1500 AGL. Like any TPA, sometimes that's published (you'll see an arrow to the right of the TPA listed in ForeFlight that shows all pattern altitudes if it is published), sometimes it's unpublished and that's just standard.

Now, imagine the big twin/turboprop/jet coming in on downwind at their TPA, and you coming in with a Cessna at your TPA+500. Kaboom.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm definitely aware of the higher/wider pattern for the turbine traffic. And, I agree that if you're gonna fly over from the upwind side in order to enter, you need to be aware of turbine traffic that may be flying a 1500' agl pattern. But, I've never personally witnessed that being factor. What I do see daily is guys in little Cessnas and Pipers, doing what they call a "tear drop entry" way too close to the airport. I see them sometimes making steep descending left turns onto the downwind (their interpretation of the "alternate" entry"), and I see them turning downwind abeam the upwind numbers, in such a way that they cannot possibly be able to see potential conflicts from crosswind traffic. This is especially dangerous when they're not at pattern altitude and wings level on the 45 long enough to evaluate the current traffic pattern conditions.
 
I think of it this way. An aircraft on 100 mile final has the ROW, and he's free to "call" it, if his transmitter is strong enough. Big deal. It could be an hour before he arrives. The ROW only matters if there is an impending conflict, and when that happens one person has to yield ("may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear") to the person who has the ROW. There really is no reason to have to specify a distance, and there's really no reason that "the pattern" has to be defined, because neither of those are regulatory. What's regulatory is when two aircraft are converging in the scenarios described in 91.113.
 
wilkersk said:
I agree that if you're gonna fly over from the upwind side in order to enter, you need to be aware of turbine traffic that may be flying a 1500' agl pattern. But, I've never personally witnessed that being factor.
Click to expand...

Mainly because the vast majority of the time, we're flying an instrument approach and making... Wait for it... A straight in final.
 
Why the heck would you need to do some intricate tear drop when you can just cross midfield and turn onto the downwind?

I may be missing what’s being described, though.
 
Bonchie said:
Why the heck would you need to do some intricate tear drop when you can just cross midfield and turn onto the downwind?

I may be missing what’s being described, though.
Click to expand...

Better yet, why not turn upwind, get a good look at the pattern activity and turn crosswind when it's clearly safe to do so? Adds very little time and makes you visible to aircraft already in the pattern. It also gives you a good look at the runway and the windsock.
 
dbahn said:
Better yet, why not turn upwind, get a good look at the pattern activity and turn crosswind when it's clearly safe to do so? Adds very little time and makes you visible to aircraft already in the pattern. It also gives you a good look at the runway and the windsock.
Click to expand...

That is the way I do it also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top