VFR traffic under the approach

[flyingcheesehead]

We'd all be safer, better pilots, and no doubt better human beings if we all flew IFR.

Nobody said that, nobody implied that, and none of us think that.

I hate the "VFR pilots just get in the way" attitude just as much as I hate your "IFR pilots just think they're hot ****" attitude that you seem to have. We all share the same airspace whether you like it or not, and some of us here are trying to facilitate sharing that airspace in the safest possible way.

Unfortunately, we don't all have the money, time, aircraft, cajones, strength with the Force, or whatever to be IFR pilots.

And nobody is saying you should. We're simply offering suggestions that can make us ALL safer. Your "I'm going to stick my middle finger up and my head in the sand" attitude doesn't help anyone, yourself included.

And no, I'm not going to go study IFR procedures to make you safer.

That wasn't even my suggestion. My suggestion was that some IFR procedures can make YOU safer. Unfortunately, it seems that as soon as anyone says "IFR" your finger goes up and your head goes in the sand because you have an unnatural hate towards IFR operations for some reason. I just don't get that.

They won't make me any safer because I can (for the time being) see where I'm going.

Do you do nothing but clearing turns when flying a cross country?

No matter what kind of plane you fly, your plane has blind spots. This particular case is the worst: The VFR pilot in Dave's scenario could have been flying a Cessna (which has a back window, but a high wing), a Piper (low wing, no back window) or anything else. There are VERY few GA aircraft that have a good view up AND back. Were you the guy in this scenario, you wouldn't have been able to see Dave. Had Dave not had the equipment in his plane that he does, he wouldn't have known you were there. If you were *perfectly* lined up, he'd have a pretty good chance of seeing you over the nose (because he doesn't have an engine there). However, if you were a little off to the side, his engine nacelle could have blocked you from view. Or, if it was me in Dave's position, flying the 182, I wouldn't have known you were there because I have no traffic avoidance equipment, and I wouldn't have seen you until the absolute last minute because I have a huge cowl in front of me. If you were just slightly to my right, chances are that I would not have been able to see you until I was less than 30 feet above you, and you would not have been able to see me. If I'm descending at 1200fpm (=20fps), and I happened to be doing something inside the cockpit momentarily (reconfiguring, looking for/tuning my next frequency, etc.) the chances are very good that there would be a collision.

I can't believe I'm reading much of this. Which moron said flying was safe? Who? I'd like to meet the stupidest pilot ever born.

You guys are telling me that I have to go learn IFR stuff just to putter around my home airport. Has it dawned on any of you that you're more likely to slip and die in the tub than have a midair collision?

NOTHING is safe. Flying is as safe as we make it. Your head-in-the-sand approach, and unwillingness to learn, leads me to the conclusion that YOU are the least safe pilot in this thread.

And please provide a reference re: slipping in the tub. Your statement is probably true for the general population, but as pilots we greatly increase the risk of having a mid-air collision.

And having an IFR pilot complain about a VFR pilot who was where he was supposed to be doing what he was supposed to be doing smacks of holier than thou. Sorry, its implicit.

No, it just means that he was attempting to share some information that you may not have known in regards to making all of us safer. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but Dave is/was the safety officer for a large and successful flying club. He's trying to help you. Pull your head out of the sand and listen.

 

[sba55]

Utter BS. Look at the record of GA flying versus any other form of transportation. Far more crashes in GA. Its simply the truth. You can go "la la la, I'm not listening" but that won't make it any safer. There are unavoidable situations in aircraft that can easily lead the best pilot to his or her demise. And we're all only human..

Surprisingly, GA isn't the least safe mode of transportation. Your statistics are wrong.

It doesn't matter, though. GA gets a bad rep and safety record because there are too many pilots just like you. Flying is extremely safe, but only if the guy in the cockpit has the right attitude. If you don't, it will kill you more quickly than most other modes of transportation. You need a higher level of maturity to be a safe pilot than the one you have displayed so far. At least you've accurately recognized your own risk level.

The irony is that you're concerned about safety, yet you fail to recognize that you're creating the danger yourself as evidenced in this thread. Sad.

Felix

 

[jesse]

Surprisingly, GA isn't the least safe mode of transportation. Your statistics are wrong.

Out of curiosity, what is?

 

[sba55]

Out of curiosity, what is?

I guess motorcycles, but it's close. I don't want to turn this thread into a statistics discussion. What matters to me personally is the ratio of safety potential / utility. Most GA accidents are caused by pilot error. If you do your best to minimize those, safety potential is very high, as proven by the p121 guys. There's less you can do to minimize risk in other modes of transportation.

Felix

 

[Trapper John]

That is certainly not the implication- rather, the simple expedient of being aware that conditions make instrument approaches likely, and accommodating that awareness into your operational choices. In this instance, take the simple extra step of calling up the controlling entity as you get close into terminal area for the destination airport.

I think that's a reasonable expectation for a VFR pilot that operates in the area frequently, but it's probably a stretch to expect that from transient pilots. It could be a student on a solo cross country passing through, too, and I'm pretty sure most students with 20-odd hours aren't going to have any idea about this. I was taught to monitor the tower frequency when in the vicinity of say Class D airspace, but I wasn't told to make contact - maybe I was taught wrong...


Trapper John

 

[rsleeds]

In fact, here's the wording right from the AFD for KSEE:

RWY 27R CLOSE ALIGNMENT TO CENTERLINE NECESSARY, USE OF LOCALIZER RECOMMENDED DUE TO PROXIMITY OF MOUNTAIN.

Can that be any clearer? He followed the rules, he even did what the AFD suggests. You were out of line in chastising him for doing this the right way.

This part of Doc's post hasn't been commented on. What say you who want to berate the lowly VFR pilot that dared be on the localizer during Dave's approach (as he, and all other VFR pilots on frequency for that matter, was upon Dave's landing)?

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't want to berate the VFR pilot at all.

But, think about it - if you're using a localizer to align with the centerline of the runway, you should know that you are putting yourself PRECISELY on the path (laterally) of any incoming IFR traffic. Nothing wrong with that, but be aware of it.

I think that's really the point. If you're a VFR pilot and you're flying around an airport with instrument approaches on a cloudy day, you should expect airplanes to come popping out of the clouds, just as they should expect airplanes might be near the cloud bases.

Keep in mind that airports where airliners operate have controlled airspace (and often radar coverage) all the way to the ground. The FAA won't put airliners and VFR traffic at the same risk that they will tolerate at the non-towered fields. If someone wants to moan about second-class citizens, that would be all us 91 and 135 operators operating in non-towered fields.

I got the crap scared out of me once when a HawkerJet popped out of the clouds on approach to Frederick right as I turned base. He was far enough away that I was able to see him, and he was thankfully fully lit up. But if I'd turned final already he'd be running up on me with about 50 knots of overtake. Maybe he'd have seen me, maybe not.

 

[rsleeds]

Tim - I understand all of that and it is useful to mindful of when operating in a "low cloud, VFR" evironment, but in the particular case I think a VFR pilot was inappropriately chastised for doing exactly what the local procedures and advisories suggest.

Based on the telling of the story here, VFR pilots received a pretty good whipping - overshadowing the valuable lesson of remaining vigilent of the operational surroundings.

 

[gismo]

Out of curiosity, what is?

Space Shuttle?

 

[gismo]

Tim - I understand all of that and it is useful to mindful of when operating in a "low cloud, VFR" evironment, but in the particular case I think a VFR pilot was inappropriately chastised for doing exactly what the local procedures and advisories suggest.

Based on the telling of the story here, VFR pilots received a pretty good whipping - overshadowing the valuable lesson of remaining vigilent of the operational surroundings.

I realize that Dave's OP could be taken that way, especially the part where he said he got on the radio and questioned why another airplane would be directly below him on approach. But chastising VFR pilots was never Dave's intent nor the intent of any other poster who's message I read on this thread. For some reason, some of us are way to ready to be offended by anything that could be construed as criticism whether or not that was intentional.

 

[docmirror]

Look, I'm not going to pick on Dave. But you go back and reread what he said, and is sure sounds like 'he got in my way'. When the fact is, the VFR guy didn't get in Dave's way, because(here's one more reason for you) VFR guy was below Dave when overtaken.

The way I see it, Dave should have given way to lower traffic, done the missed, let the VFR guy land, and then re-establish on the LOC-D appr. Just because you are in the clouds, or descend faster, or have IFR on your flight plan doesn't give you the right of way. I could look up the FAR and prove it, but I'm too lazy.

We started out with a false assumption, that the VFR guy was in the wrong, and have used some pretty distorted logic(I go faster, I'm in clouds, I'm on IFR, I can descend >2000FPM, etc) to try proving it, when no proof can change the facts that Dave was in the wrong, not the VFR plane below, in front of, and directly on the LOC-D course into the airport.

Like I said before, deal with it.

 

[gprellwitz]

Look, I'm not going to pick on Dave. But you go back and reread what he said, and is sure sounds like 'he got in my way'. When the fact is, the VFR guy didn't get in Dave's way, because(here's one more reason for you) VFR guy was below Dave when overtaken.

The way I see it, Dave should have given way to lower traffic, done the missed, let the VFR guy land, and then re-establish on the LOC-D appr. Just because you are in the clouds, or descend faster, or have IFR on your flight plan doesn't give you the right of way. I could look up the FAR and prove it, but I'm too lazy.

We started out with a false assumption, that the VFR guy was in the wrong, and have used some pretty distorted logic(I go faster, I'm in clouds, I'm on IFR, I can descend >2000FPM, etc) to try proving it, when no proof can change the facts that Dave was in the wrong, not the VFR plane below, in front of, and directly on the LOC-D course into the airport.

Like I said before, deal with it.

I really don't think this is about right and wrong, but about how to make this safer for all involved. In fact, in this instance, I'm not convinced anyone was "in the wrong." Dave had the equipment available to recognize a potential problem before there was a collision. In many instances, that wouldn't have been the case, but potential problems can be alleviated by better situational awareness and communication. In this instance, most of the possibility for improving the safety lies with the VFR pilot because s/he has the most flexibility. To exercise that flexibility to improve safety requires awareness of the possibility, which is, I think, the goal of this thread.

 

[docmirror]

I give up, do what you want.

 

[KennyFlys]

It's not about right or wrong. It's about doing what was safe. Dave may have very well been frustrated when he wrote that. I don't know and that's really not the issue. I know this is not his first encounter with poor judgment of pilots.

Heck, look how frustrated I was when dealing with how a school was teaching its students at back at Conroe. I got jumped on pretty hard and even called a couple not so nice things in the process. I'd rather be a live ass than a dead one after some idiot's action.

Had Dave not broke through the base when he did and had a visual approach, he would have gone missed. A clear-thinking VFR pilot would be cognitive of the potential of IFR traffic in nearby clouds and not be making flights that linger under a known approach.

When having students practice at an area airport with three runways, my head is on a swivel looking for traffic. When I hear an aircraft over the IAF for the ILS or other approach, I go into overtime because the runway most commonly used (17) and that with the ILS (13) meet at the departure end in an acute angle.

If I cannot be absolutely certain of separation, I'll have my student extent upwind or downwind. Either way, we certainly won't be trying to land if I cannot be certain of the other aircraft's position.

Again, it's all about doing what it takes to remain safe. Consider that thought rather than beat someone up because they didn't state in a way that meets your approval.

 

[Chairboy]

A clear-thinking VFR pilot would be cognitive of the potential of IFR traffic in nearby clouds and not be making flights that linger under a known approach.

I see no evidence in any of the posts that the VFR pilot in this situation was 'lingering' anywhere. It sounds as if he followed the suggested procedure and happened to inconvenience a pilot who was IFR, who then came in here and pronounced judgment.

It also seems as if there's a concerted effort for the finger pointers to, instead of acknowledging that the initial pronouncement against the unknown pilot was in error, to simply hold their hands up and say "Well, we're just saying... that we want everyone to be safer."

 

[wsuffa]

So a week ago Sunday I was riding in a CRJ into JFK to make an international connection. We were arriving on 31R... as we crossed the beach, I looked out and saw a Katana cross below on the "beach" VFR route. We were probably 1000' on approach at the time....

 

[Chairboy]

Crossing the beach for 31R puts you about 10 miles out, you sure you were at 1000'?

 

[Skip Miller]

So a week ago Sunday I was riding in a CRJ into JFK to make an international connection. We were arriving on 31R... as we crossed the beach, I looked out and saw a Katana cross below on the "beach" VFR route. We were probably 1000' on approach at the time....

The Class B floor along the beach is +500 feet.

-Skip

 

[wsuffa]

Crossing the beach for 31R puts you about 10 miles out, you sure you were at 1000'?

Or we were on the other runway....

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I didn't mean to berate anyone. I haven't had time to go back and read through this entire thread until last night, but after doing that can see why some folks may take issue.

In my first post I said: I mentioned this to tower when the pilot got into the traffic pattern, asked why a VFR pilot would get right under the approach on the approach path when ceilings were low and it would cause a missed approach.

I was frustrated and this was directed to tower. What happened is I asked tower if they knew an aircraft was flying right under me while I was on the approach. Tower responded the aircraft was VFR. I asked tower if they had informed the aircraft it was blocking any descent on the approach. Tower didn't respond. I said it would have been very nice if someone could have coordinated with the other aircraft so the approach wasn't blocked. IMO, that wasn't directed at the other aircraft; it was directed at tower. If the other pilot was listening, he could chose to look into it, or ignore it.

My intent wasn't to blame the VFR fella; I was taken back that this could happen. I wondered why tower hadn't coordinated or how the VFR fella could be there. It was only after I got on the ground and thought through all of this I figured out how it could happen with both folks doing what they thought was right.

Without TIS, I wouldn't have known this fella was there. Approach told me very late. The VFR fella might not have known I was there at all--I never got down out of the clouds over him; I came down later, well in front of him; not an option I would have had on a precision approach.

It's a real safty issue. Approach is guiding me down, I'm on radar on a published approach and I get a TIS warning there is traffic right below me at an altitute that prevents me from descending at a critical point. Why would approach sequence me that way? How could the VFR fella be there without coordinating with anyone? No one was wrong, but it sure lead to a potentially dangerours situation.

No offense intended to VFR folks; but questioning at the time how approach and tower could be coordinating and allow me to get into this situation.

Best,

Dave

 

[KennyFlys]

So a week ago Sunday I was riding in a CRJ into JFK to make an international connection. We were arriving on 31R... as we crossed the beach, I looked out and saw a Katana cross below on the "beach" VFR route. We were probably 1000' on approach at the time....

Jason can speak more to this but small aircraft flying under 1,000 around JFK and LGA is a regular occurrence. They are on a discrete squawk and monitored by tower or TRACON. With all the heavy aircraft into the three area terminals, that's about the only way a VFR aircraft can get around.

If you were a small IFR aircraft and trying to get into one of these airports, you would be laughed along with the word, "Unable" and sent off another direction. But, if you want to transition under VFR, be low, eyes wide open and listen to the controller.

 

[Chairboy]

East coast pilots might find LAX's unique Special Flight Rules corridor interesting. It's a corridor like no other.

 

[Danos]

Jason can speak more to this but small aircraft flying under 1,000 around JFK and LGA is a regular occurrence. They are on a discrete squawk and monitored by tower or TRACON. With all the heavy aircraft into the three area terminals, that's about the only way a VFR aircraft can get around.

If you were a small IFR aircraft and trying to get into one of these airports, you would be laughed along with the word, "Unable" and sent off another direction. But, if you want to transition under VFR, be low, eyes wide open and listen to the controller.

The base of bravo on the south side is 500 ft along the shoreline. Every time I've gone through JFK's bravo VFR I got vectored directly over it to the JFK VOR no lower than 3500' and out of the path of the arrivals and departures which are mostly over the water.

 

[Skip Miller]

...small aircraft flying under 1,000 around JFK and LGA is a regular occurrence. They are on a discrete squawk and monitored by tower or TRACON.

Don't count on this! Aircraft in VFR airspace (example - along the beach south of JFK, or in the Hudson Corridor) are VFR and are not required to talk to anyone. Those of us with a few functioning brain cells will certainly be with tower if radio equipped, but there is no requirement to do so.

-Skip

 

[KennyFlys]

Don't count on this! Aircraft in VFR airspace (example - along the beach south of JFK, or in the Hudson Corridor) are VFR and are not required to talk to anyone. Those of us with a few functioning brain cells will certainly be with tower if radio equipped, but there is no requirement to do so.

-Skip

Yep, there are those corridors. You'd think some would learn after from a baseball player's actions but I suppose not.

 

[Danos]

Yep, there are those corridors. You'd think some would learn after from a baseball player's actions but I suppose not.

The route under the bravo isn't a corridor route. It's just under the shelf. The only one is the Hudson which is a lot wider than the East River. The wind usually favors a tighter turn towards Manhattan than towards the Jersey side which has little to no obstructions. The concern on the Jersey side is busting Bravo which beats slamming into a building any day of the week. It's just a matter of getting slow enough which is easily doable. I'm a lot more concerned about all the traffic packed in the corridor.

 

[wsuffa]

Jason can speak more to this but small aircraft flying under 1,000 around JFK and LGA is a regular occurrence. They are on a discrete squawk and monitored by tower or TRACON. With all the heavy aircraft into the three area terminals, that's about the only way a VFR aircraft can get around.

If you were a small IFR aircraft and trying to get into one of these airports, you would be laughed along with the word, "Unable" and sent off another direction. But, if you want to transition under VFR, be low, eyes wide open and listen to the controller.

The route under the bravo isn't a corridor route. It's just under the shelf. The only one is the Hudson which is a lot wider than the East River. The wind usually favors a tighter turn towards Manhattan than towards the Jersey side which has little to no obstructions. The concern on the Jersey side is busting Bravo which beats slamming into a building any day of the week. It's just a matter of getting slow enough which is easily doable. I'm a lot more concerned about all the traffic packed in the corridor.

Yep, I understand that. This is the first time I've had the pleasure of seeing the VFR traffic below us. Don't think I'd want to fly that "under shelf" beach route right after a heavy came through final.

 

[captvikki]

I was frustrated and this was directed to tower. What happened is I asked tower if they knew an aircraft was flying right under me while I was on the approach. Tower responded the aircraft was VFR. I asked tower if they had informed the aircraft it was blocking any descent on the approach. Tower didn't respond. I said it would have been very nice if someone could have coordinated with the other aircraft so the approach wasn't blocked. IMO, that wasn't directed at the other aircraft; it was directed at tower. If the other pilot was listening, he could chose to look into it, or ignore it.

How much is the "tower" at fault? If any?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

As you've probably figured out, which I hadn't when I made the comment to tower, tower is not responsible for separating VFR traffic inbound; although, they often due. In this case, the VFR aircraft wasn't talking to tower when I had the problem. They contacted tower closer in. So, everyone was doing what was technically correct. Had the VFR aircraft monitored approach, he/she would have known I was on the way down above them, but they are not required to do that. Of course, approach handles IFR traffic and VFR flight following when they can.

It's a bit of an anomoly because of the long, step-down approach over the mountains in this case. There is a long period where one is on the approach before getting into the class D control area of tower. Outside that area, the VFR folks wouldn't be monitoring approach unless flight following or trying to increase traffic awareness and they are outside tower's class D.

Best,

Dave

 

[Danos]

Yep, I understand that. This is the first time I've had the pleasure of seeing the VFR traffic below us. Don't think I'd want to fly that "under shelf" beach route right after a heavy came through final.

It was a bit bumpier than the rest of the shoreline. Nothing bad enough to roll you. Its very pretty. Especially at night.

 

[kkoran]

I didn't mean to berate anyone. I haven't had time to go back and read through this entire thread until last night, but after doing that can see why some folks may take issue.

In my first post I said: I mentioned this to tower when the pilot got into the traffic pattern, asked why a VFR pilot would get right under the approach on the approach path when ceilings were low and it would cause a missed approach.

I was frustrated and this was directed to tower. What happened is I asked tower if they knew an aircraft was flying right under me while I was on the approach. Tower responded the aircraft was VFR. I asked tower if they had informed the aircraft it was blocking any descent on the approach. Tower didn't respond. I said it would have been very nice if someone could have coordinated with the other aircraft so the approach wasn't blocked. IMO, that wasn't directed at the other aircraft; it was directed at tower. If the other pilot was listening, he could chose to look into it, or ignore it.

My intent wasn't to blame the VFR fella; I was taken back that this could happen. I wondered why tower hadn't coordinated or how the VFR fella could be there. It was only after I got on the ground and thought through all of this I figured out how it could happen with both folks doing what they thought was right.

Without TIS, I wouldn't have known this fella was there. Approach told me very late. The VFR fella might not have known I was there at all--I never got down out of the clouds over him; I came down later, well in front of him; not an option I would have had on a precision approach.

It's a real safty issue. Approach is guiding me down, I'm on radar on a published approach and I get a TIS warning there is traffic right below me at an altitute that prevents me from descending at a critical point. Why would approach sequence me that way? How could the VFR fella be there without coordinating with anyone? No one was wrong, but it sure lead to a potentially dangerours situation.

No offense intended to VFR folks; but questioning at the time how approach and tower could be coordinating and allow me to get into this situation.

Best,

Dave

Dave,

How could ATC let this happen? The system operates under the assumption that pilots are operating in accordance with th rules. Therefore, they assume the VFR pilot is complying with VFR cloud clearance requirements and that you and/or he will be able to see an avoid each other. Keep in mind that a controller usually doesn't know whether a particular aircraft is in IMC or VMC at any given moment.

Traffic Alerts are normally not instructions, but rather, a warning and (if possible) a suggested course of action. From FAAO 7110.65:

PHRASEOLOGY-
TRAFFIC ALERT (call sign) (position of aircraft) ADVISE YOU TURN LEFT/RIGHT (heading),

and/or

CLIMB/DESCEND (specific altitude if appropriate) IMMEDIATELY. ​

I don't know what, exactly, the controller said to you. If he indeed instructed to to maintain an altitude, he should have cancelled your approach clearance and vectored you for another approach. Of course, the next time around, another VFR aircraft could be flying across the final approach course and the same thing would happen--you see a target 1000 ft. below you and the controller issues a traffic alert. With the traffic around some airports, this could happen until you run out of gas.

 

[Palmpilot]

The way I see it, Dave should have given way to lower traffic, done the missed, let the VFR guy land, and then re-establish on the LOC-D appr. Just because you are in the clouds, or descend faster, or have IFR on your flight plan doesn't give you the right of way. I could look up the FAR and prove it, but I'm too lazy.

91.113(f) and (g) would both seem to apply, so it appears that the VFR aircraft had the right of way. However, if I remember rightly, Dave said the VFR aircraft was still not in contact with the tower at seven miles out, which seems to me to be cutting it awfully close. I was taught to call tower at 15 miles, and the AIM recommends ten miles for uncontrolled fields.

(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
(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.

So here's a question for the thread: do the above right of way rules need to be changed?

 

[sba55]

So here's a question for the thread: do the above right of way rules need to be changed?

Maybe, but this thread has nothing to do with right of way rules. If you're IFR, you follow your clearance. Unless you have TCAS, that's all you're allowed to do.

It's also not about IFR being "better" or any of that. We're just trying to provide some suggestions to VFR pilots on how they themselves can be safer. I haven't met a pilot who truly believed that it wasn't worth knowing as much as possible in order to become as safe as possible. This issue - IFR arrivals on marginal VFR days - is one of those things that will make you , your passengers, and people around you safer if you're aware of it.

And Ben, I'm sorry, but you're missing the point. Nobody is criticizing the VFR pilot. He could have handled the situation better by being in radio contact with ATC given that he was in very busy airspace. It's just a matter of being aware of these factors - MVFR, airspace, approaches. There's plenty of things you can do under the FARs that are perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean that they're advisable.

-Felix

 

[Ghery]

Keep in mind that airports where airliners operate have controlled airspace (and often radar coverage) all the way to the ground. The FAA won't put airliners and VFR traffic at the same risk that they will tolerate at the non-towered fields. If someone wants to moan about second-class citizens, that would be all us 91 and 135 operators operating in non-towered fields.

Not necessarily. PUW is an uncontrolled field, Class E to the surface. Horizon Airlines has regularly scheduled service there. And I've had a Horizon Dash 8 sitting at the hold short line as I landed. No pressure on me, just gusty cross winds, wife in the right seat and two ATPs grading the landing. But I was VFR (with FF) and they had no special treatment over me. Oh, and sorry, but it was a long straight in approach, too. Just as if I'd been on the VOR rwy 5 instrument approach.

At PUW, make your calls on 122.8 (if you have a radio) and listen for others. That one, if I had it to do over again, I would have told Horizon to go ahead. When we were talking on the radio I didn't realize just how long it was going to take me to get to the runway and if they had gone immediately they'd have been half way to their next stop at Lewiston, Idaho before I got there. Oh well...

 

[docmirror]

Nobody is criticizing the VFR pilot. He could have handled the situation better by being in radio contact with ATC given that he was in very busy airspace.

-Felix

Cool, preface your criticism with a nonsequitur.

'I'm not criticizing but it would be better if xxx, yyy, zzz.'

Fly the plane.

 

[kkoran]

91.113(f) and (g) would both seem to apply, so it appears that the VFR aircraft had the right of way. However, if I remember rightly, Dave said the VFR aircraft was still not in contact with the tower at seven miles out, which seems to me to be cutting it awfully close. I was taught to call tower at 15 miles, and the AIM recommends ten miles for uncontrolled fields.



So here's a question for the thread: do the above right of way rules need to be changed?

What changes would you suggest?

 

[flyersfan31]

Some people are touchy.

May I summarize?

If you are VFR, on a cloudy day, be careful when you're flying in an approach corridor, and realize there may be IFR traffic coming out of them.

If you are IFR, in the clouds but with clear air below, be careful and realize that there may be VFR traffic under those clouds when you break out.

Is that ok??

 

[Everskyward]

Some people are touchy.

No kidding.

Is that ok??

Yes.

 

[Palmpilot]

What changes would you suggest?

I think that IFR pilots (and I am one) as well as VFR pilots need to know and follow the right of way rules. If there are those among us who think that's excessively burdensome on IFR flights, perhaps they might be able to think of rule changes that could make things safer. Personally, I haven't come up with anything.

Another idea would be including an item in both the PPL and IFR training requirements about instruction on techniques for avoiding VFR/IFR collisions in marginal weather. Consciousness raising on message boards is helpful, but reaches only a small fraction of the pilot population.

 

[Palmpilot]

Maybe, but this thread has nothing to do with right of way rules.

Are you sure? Notice that in the opening post, a pilot who did not have the right of way complained, both here and on the radio, about the presence of an aircraft that did have the right of way.

If you're IFR, you follow your clearance. Unless you have TCAS, that's all you're allowed to do.

In most cases, an IFR flight's altitude is only restricted by a minimum altitude, so flying above that altitude would be one option for complying with both the right of way rules and instrument flight rules. In addition, maneuvering to avoid a collision is permitted per 91.3.

It's also not about IFR being "better" or any of that.

I agree. Our focus should be on how everyone, whether operating VFR or IFR, can do the best possible job of accident avoidance.