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.
There is no ambiguity. The lower aircraft *ON FINAL* has the right of way. In this case, that was the 340.
Both pilots made mistakes - The 340 was way too fast, not configured, and clearly way behind the airplane. The 152 cut off a much faster plane on final, when if he'd waited maybe 20 seconds to turn base they would not have been converging.
BUt what constitutes a final? 3mi, 5mi?
I'm not aware of any case law on this issue, but since most instrument approaches have a 5-6 nautical mile final segment, you should consider at least that distance to be "final".
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.
Absolutely not. Especially in the case of faster/heavier aircraft, it's generally safest to just let them do the straight in and get the heck out of the way.
Think of it this way. If you're in a cabin class twin like the 340, you're going to be flying the pattern at 1500 AGL - this is standard for those aircraft because, for example, what I could find about the 340 says it has an approach speed of 110 knots whereas a 152 will be something like 60. With a 50-knot overtake, if they flew the exact same pattern as everyone else, then everyone else would have to leave the area if the patterns were the same.
In addition, because they're flying higher and faster in the pattern, they need to fly their pattern further away from the runway. So now, on a standard left-hand traffic pattern, they're going to be above and to the right of traffic on the standard 1000-AGL light aircraft traffic pattern. That means you won't be able to see them if you're in the 152 'cuz you've got a wing there, and even in a low wing single it'd be awkward because you'd have to lean over to see out the right-side window. And if you're in the 340, that 152 is going to be out of sight behind an engine nacelle or a wing.
Bottom line: It is NOT safer to put the fast movers into the pattern. I know that everyone wants to lay claim to their "turn" to land, but seriously, why?!? Wait until you're behind the fast mover on final to turn base, then you can be on final without worrying about whether they're gonna come up your tailpipe and you can just focus on your own flying because they've already landed.
I've been on both sides of this equation numerous times. I happily give way to the bigger/faster guys when I'm in the smaller plane, and I really appreciate it when the little guys let me get my passengers on the ground safely and quickly with a minimum of maneuvering, fuel burn, and trying to scan for slower-moving traffic in all the ground clutter.
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.
The tower is mainly responsible for the runway. They are not responsible for separation in the air. That's still on you. See the links that were posted in this thread, there have been numerous mid-airs at towered airports.
No. Keep eyes and ears open. And there is case law that says somewhere around 5 miles is "pattern"
3 miles. That was the Southwest Airlines guy who turned right onto final 3 miles out.
There is a special spot in the "bad place" for pilots who start trying to claim ROW for a straight-in 10 miles out, even on a day when the pattern is full of students. I'm glad to work around 180 kt Kero burners, people who announce they're shooting practice IFR approaches in VFR, and commercial students practicing their deadstick from altitude.
But the Bonanzas and Mooneys and Comanches drivers (dare I add Cirus operators) who can't be bothered to join the circuit are annoying.
I wouldn't necessarily throw those guys, of which I am one, under the bus. In some ways, it's the same problems as I was talking about above, only worse because I'm at the same pattern altitude as significantly slower aircraft. FWIW, in my "big" Mooney (Long body, IO-550) I can't really see over the nose unless I'm going 100 KIAS or so until I'm configured for landing... And if I'm joining the pattern at the end of a cross country flight I'm probably significantly faster than that - My gear speed is 140, usually I'm descending at around 160-165 KIAS and I have to sit at 14" of manifold pressure for a while to get down to 140 to throw the gear out. Anything less than 14" and the gear warning horn goes off. So, it's not always easy to "fit in" with a bunch of C-birds in a pattern.
However, it's really never been a problem, and that's because of two words: MUTUAL RESPECT.
Every time I've approached an uncontrolled field, in any of the airplanes I fly, with any other planes around, we've worked it out on the radio. Are you in a 152 on base? OK, I'll fly the upwind over the top of you and go around the pattern. Are you in a Gulfstream and ATC just dumped you onto CTAF 5 miles from the field? OK, I'll extend my downwind and come in behind you. Are you in that Cessna on downwind when I was in the turboprop getting switched to CTAF on a 5 mile final? I greatly appreciate it when you extend your downwind for me because I know you're probably paying by Hobbs time and would rather get as many landings per dollar in as you can.
The only time there seems to be problems is when pilots let their egos get in the way and don't exercise that respect for their fellow pilots and want to stake a claim to "their turn" or try to be pattern police (ESPECIALLY on the radio).
So how about we just work together to keep everyone safe, and not start dreaming up new regulations that won't help anyone?
