Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that a pilot, flying
VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an uncontrolled field
(assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the pilot fly the
usual pattern to land?

Thanks.

Bob

BobKK47 wrote:
> Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that a pilot, flying
> VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an uncontrolled field
> (assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the pilot fly the
> usual pattern to land?

FAR 91.113, 91.126, 91.127, and AC 90-66A seem to be the FAA's guidance
on the subject.

Dave has provided the regulatory info, but the bottom line is that you can
do pretty much whatever you want to do at an uncontrolled field in VFR
conditions...and sometimes people do some really weird and unexpected
things. If a pilot wants to shoot a practice instrument approach of any kind
to such an airport, the result will be a straight-in, which is covered by
the Advisory Circular he cites.

Part 91 contains all of the operational regulations you will ever need as a
Part 91 pilot. Anything that is not specifically prohibited is allowed.

Bob Gardner
"BobKK47" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that a pilot, flying
> VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an uncontrolled field
> (assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the pilot fly the
> usual pattern to land?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bob
>

Courtesy and regulations both apply. Regulations do not
prohibit straight-in approaches, they say "if turns are
made." Courtesy says you should not fly an approach against
the traffic flow into the pattern, as well as regulations
about right of way.
Courtesy requires you announce and listen on the CTAF.
If all you want is practice, fly the approach 2 or 3,000
feet high.

Have all your lights ON.

Use two safety pilots who can see well.


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
. ..
| Dave has provided the regulatory info, but the bottom line
is that you can
| do pretty much whatever you want to do at an uncontrolled
field in VFR
| conditions...and sometimes people do some really weird and
unexpected
| things. If a pilot wants to shoot a practice instrument
approach of any kind
| to such an airport, the result will be a straight-in,
which is covered by
| the Advisory Circular he cites.
|
| Part 91 contains all of the operational regulations you
will ever need as a
| Part 91 pilot. Anything that is not specifically
prohibited is allowed.
|
| Bob Gardner
| "BobKK47" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that a
pilot, flying
| > VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an
uncontrolled field
| > (assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the
pilot fly the
| > usual pattern to land?
| >
| > Thanks.
| >
| > Bob
| >
|
|

No argument, Jim, but AC 90-66A clearly shows a straight-in segment to both
single and parallel runways.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Courtesy and regulations both apply. Regulations do not
> prohibit straight-in approaches, they say "if turns are
> made." Courtesy says you should not fly an approach against
> the traffic flow into the pattern, as well as regulations
> about right of way.
> Courtesy requires you announce and listen on the CTAF.
> If all you want is practice, fly the approach 2 or 3,000
> feet high.
>
> Have all your lights ON.
>
> Use two safety pilots who can see well.
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | Dave has provided the regulatory info, but the bottom line
> is that you can
> | do pretty much whatever you want to do at an uncontrolled
> field in VFR
> | conditions...and sometimes people do some really weird and
> unexpected
> | things. If a pilot wants to shoot a practice instrument
> approach of any kind
> | to such an airport, the result will be a straight-in,
> which is covered by
> | the Advisory Circular he cites.
> |
> | Part 91 contains all of the operational regulations you
> will ever need as a
> | Part 91 pilot. Anything that is not specifically
> prohibited is allowed.
> |
> | Bob Gardner
> | "BobKK47" > wrote in message
> |
> oups.com...
> | > Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that a
> pilot, flying
> | > VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an
> uncontrolled field
> | > (assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the
> pilot fly the
> | > usual pattern to land?
> | >
> | > Thanks.
> | >
> | > Bob
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>

I did not mention parallel runways, but in VFR the
bottom-line is you can do almost anything as long as it is
safe and doesn't cause a collision hazard.


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
. ..
| No argument, Jim, but AC 90-66A clearly shows a
straight-in segment to both
| single and parallel runways.
|
| Bob Gardner
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Courtesy and regulations both apply. Regulations do not
| > prohibit straight-in approaches, they say "if turns are
| > made." Courtesy says you should not fly an approach
against
| > the traffic flow into the pattern, as well as
regulations
| > about right of way.
| > Courtesy requires you announce and listen on the CTAF.
| > If all you want is practice, fly the approach 2 or 3,000
| > feet high.
| >
| > Have all your lights ON.
| >
| > Use two safety pilots who can see well.
| >
| >
| > "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
| > . ..
| > | Dave has provided the regulatory info, but the bottom
line
| > is that you can
| > | do pretty much whatever you want to do at an
uncontrolled
| > field in VFR
| > | conditions...and sometimes people do some really weird
and
| > unexpected
| > | things. If a pilot wants to shoot a practice
instrument
| > approach of any kind
| > | to such an airport, the result will be a straight-in,
| > which is covered by
| > | the Advisory Circular he cites.
| > |
| > | Part 91 contains all of the operational regulations
you
| > will ever need as a
| > | Part 91 pilot. Anything that is not specifically
| > prohibited is allowed.
| > |
| > | Bob Gardner
| > | "BobKK47" > wrote in message
| > |
| >
oups.com...
| > | > Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that
a
| > pilot, flying
| > | > VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an
| > uncontrolled field
| > | > (assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the
| > pilot fly the
| > | > usual pattern to land?
| > | >
| > | > Thanks.
| > | >
| > | > Bob
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
| >
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>I did not mention parallel runways, but in VFR the
> bottom-line is you can do almost anything as long as it is
> safe and doesn't cause a collision hazard.
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | No argument, Jim, but AC 90-66A clearly shows a
> straight-in segment to both
> | single and parallel runways.
> |
> | Bob Gardner
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | > Courtesy and regulations both apply. Regulations do not
> | > prohibit straight-in approaches, they say "if turns are
> | > made." Courtesy says you should not fly an approach
> against
> | > the traffic flow into the pattern, as well as
> regulations
> | > about right of way.
> | > Courtesy requires you announce and listen on the CTAF.
> | > If all you want is practice, fly the approach 2 or 3,000
> | > feet high.
> | >
> | > Have all your lights ON.
> | >
> | > Use two safety pilots who can see well.
> | >
> | >
> | > "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> | > . ..
> | > | Dave has provided the regulatory info, but the bottom
> line
> | > is that you can
> | > | do pretty much whatever you want to do at an
> uncontrolled
> | > field in VFR
> | > | conditions...and sometimes people do some really weird
> and
> | > unexpected
> | > | things. If a pilot wants to shoot a practice
> instrument
> | > approach of any kind
> | > | to such an airport, the result will be a straight-in,
> | > which is covered by
> | > | the Advisory Circular he cites.
> | > |
> | > | Part 91 contains all of the operational regulations
> you
> | > will ever need as a
> | > | Part 91 pilot. Anything that is not specifically
> | > prohibited is allowed.
> | > |
> | > | Bob Gardner
> | > | "BobKK47" > wrote in message
> | > |
> | >
> oups.com...
> | > | > Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that
> a
> | > pilot, flying
> | > | > VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an
> | > uncontrolled field
> | > | > (assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the
> | > pilot fly the
> | > | > usual pattern to land?
> | > | >
> | > | > Thanks.
> | > | >
> | > | > Bob

I was looking at this the other day and ran across this from the AOPA
website. An airline pilot was approaching to land using a right hand turn
to final. He was far enough out that he argued he actually entered the
traffic pattern as a straight-in approach. Another aircraft in the pattern
already had to alter course to avoid the airliner.

The Alaska Airlines captain of this flight had his ATP certificate suspended
for 20 days for making a right turn onto final approach to Runway 8 at
Kotzebue. He maintained that the approach he had made qualified as a
straight-in approach. He had set up a right base for the runway and told
flight service that he intended to make a "right turn into" that runway. He
said that he was relying on instructions in the Alaska Airlines flight
operations manual, which provide that straight-in approaches at uncontrolled
airports "shall be planned so that the aircraft is aligned not less than
four nautical miles from the approach end of the runway." Actually, the
airplane was not completely aligned until it was about 3.1 miles out,
because the turn was begun earlier than anticipated in order to avoid
another aircraft in the area.

The Board held that even if this was a straight-in approach, it would still
be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with
another aircraft approaching the airport. The evidence showed that the
airliner conflicted with a Cessna 402, causing the Cessna to abort a
practice VOR/DME approach to the airport. It was the same aircraft that the
Boeing captain maintained he altered his course to avoid.

The Board said: "Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at
uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR
section 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other
aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern."

So, while a straight-in approach to an uncontrolled airport is legal under
the FARs, the straight-in approach must be started some considerable (but
undefined) distance from the runway and the traffic pattern, and it must not
interfere with aircraft in the traffic pattern or on an instrument approach.

Allen wrote:

>
> So, while a straight-in approach to an uncontrolled airport is legal under
> the FARs, the straight-in approach must be started some considerable (but
> undefined) distance from the runway and the traffic pattern, and it must not
> interfere with aircraft in the traffic pattern or on an instrument approach.
>
>
If an instrument approach is being made, practice or under IFR (during
VFR weather conditions) I agree that it must not interfere with other
traffic in the traffic pattern. But, it would be quite reasonable that
the straight-in would be defined by the FAF.

On Mar 5, 11:11 am, "BobKK47" > wrote:
> Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that a pilot, flying
> VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an uncontrolled field
> (assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the pilot fly the
> usual pattern to land?

The only part of the approach that actually happens in the traffic
pattern is the very last couple of miles. Usually you can fly the
approach and then work into the pattern with traffic. While you are
out there doing your procedure turns, etc you are not anywhere near
the traffic pattern.
-Robert, CFII

On 03/12/07 15:10, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:11 am, "BobKK47" > wrote:
>> Is there any reason, or regulation, that states that a pilot, flying
>> VFR, is prohibited in flying a GPS approach to an uncontrolled field
>> (assuming VFR conditions at the field), or must the pilot fly the
>> usual pattern to land?
>
> The only part of the approach that actually happens in the traffic
> pattern is the very last couple of miles. Usually you can fly the
> approach and then work into the pattern with traffic. While you are
> out there doing your procedure turns, etc you are not anywhere near
> the traffic pattern.
> -Robert, CFII
>

.... and as was pointed out here recently, if you wish to do a straight-in
approach to landing, you must not interfere with any airplanes in the
traffic pattern. You must break-off your approach and join the traffic
pattern at the appropriate altitude, etc.

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> ... and as was pointed out here recently, if you wish to do a straight-in
> approach to landing, you must not interfere with any airplanes in the
> traffic pattern. You must break-off your approach and join the traffic
> pattern at the appropriate altitude, etc.
>

A straight-in has the right of way.

Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>>
>
> ... and as was pointed out here recently,


If so then that person was wrong.


if you wish to do a straight-in
> approach to landing, you must not interfere with any airplanes in the
> traffic pattern.

No such FAR.


You must break-off your approach and join the traffic
> pattern at the appropriate altitude, etc.

Hogwash

On 03/12/07 17:03, Newps wrote:
>
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> ... and as was pointed out here recently,
>
>
> If so then that person was wrong.

Oh, great. Now I have to remember where I read that ;-\

I'll try to remember and post back.


>
>
> if you wish to do a straight-in
>> approach to landing, you must not interfere with any airplanes in the
>> traffic pattern.
>
> No such FAR.
>
>
> You must break-off your approach and join the traffic
>> pattern at the appropriate altitude, etc.
>
> Hogwash

On 03/12/07 17:44, Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 03/12/07 17:03, Newps wrote:
>>
>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ... and as was pointed out here recently,
>>
>>
>> If so then that person was wrong.
>
> Oh, great. Now I have to remember where I read that ;-\
>
> I'll try to remember and post back.

I was referring to the post by "Allen" in this thread on the 5th, wherein it
was stated:

> [snip]
> The Board held that even if this was a straight-in approach, it would still
> be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with
> another aircraft approaching the airport. The evidence showed that the
> airliner conflicted with a Cessna 402, causing the Cessna to abort a
> practice VOR/DME approach to the airport. It was the same aircraft that the
> Boeing captain maintained he altered his course to avoid.
>
> The Board said: "Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at
> uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR
> section 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other
> aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern."
>
> So, while a straight-in approach to an uncontrolled airport is legal under
> the FARs, the straight-in approach must be started some considerable (but
> undefined) distance from the runway and the traffic pattern, and it must not
> interfere with aircraft in the traffic pattern or on an instrument approach.

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was referring to the post by "Allen" in this thread on the 5th, wherein
> it
> was stated:
>
>> [snip]
>> The Board held that even if this was a straight-in approach, it would
>> still
>> be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with
>> another aircraft approaching the airport. The evidence showed that the
>> airliner conflicted with a Cessna 402, causing the Cessna to abort a
>> practice VOR/DME approach to the airport. It was the same aircraft that
>> the
>> Boeing captain maintained he altered his course to avoid.
>>
>> The Board said: "Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at
>> uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR
>> section 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other
>> aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern."
>>
>> So, while a straight-in approach to an uncontrolled airport is legal
>> under
>> the FARs, the straight-in approach must be started some considerable (but
>> undefined) distance from the runway and the traffic pattern, and it must
>> not
>> interfere with aircraft in the traffic pattern or on an instrument
>> approach.
>

The board, and Allen, are in error.