"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final"

[Jim Cummiskey]

Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:

I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in Prescott,
AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles
final."

I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
(hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).

At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report "5
mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn
right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."

Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .

(1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
(sounds like a base to me).

or

(2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
"straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.

I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it
seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to
work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
definition is right?

Regards, Jim

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
> Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .
>
> (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
> extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
> (sounds like a base to me).
>
> or
>
> (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
> "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.

I always try to be on the extended centerline by 2 miles or so. Depending
on how far out I'm starting, or what the specific instructions were, I might
need to be on the extended centerline earlier.

In your case, I see two problems, both related to your original instruction
and the definition of "final". IMHO, you were within your rights to fly
direct to the runway, if you really wanted to. However, you should not have
called your position as "final". To me, "final" specifically means that
you're on the extended centerline, which you were not.

The AIM defines "final" in the pilot/controller glossary as "commonly used
to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with
a landing area". Note that "final approach course" is relevant only for an
instrument approach (and is well-defined by that instrument approach
procedure, and is almost always aligned with the runway), and so the only
definition relevant to your situation specifically says that "final" is
aligned with the runway.

The second issue is, of course, whether you obeyed the controller's
instruction. Since the word "final" means something very specific, it's
clear to me that the controller expected you to fly to a point 5 miles out
on the extended centerline and report that point. You didn't do that. You
should have told her you weren't going to do that.

So...you certainly were within your rights to fly the approach you did, but
a) you should have told the controller your intent to deviate from her
instruction, and b) you should not have reported your position as "final"
since you weren't on the extended centerline.

Hope that helps...

Pete

[Michael 182]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...

> That's my question too ... why would you consciously choose to fly 30°
off? why
> *wouldn't* you line yourself up with the centerline (*straight*-in)?

To get there faster, although from 20 miles out you probably won't notice
any difference. Making a 30 degree turn on short final is simple - in fact
many controllers will say "proceed directly to threshold", or some similar
instruction while you are turning downwind to base to get you in faster if
there is traffic in sequence behind you .

[BTIZ]

I have been DIRECTED to proceed direct to the runway.. it was about a
30-40degree cut and to "expedite"... it was a matter of timing for the
controller.. to get me in.. I did my 30 degree turn over the numbers in the
flare..

BT

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:ZAURc.231934$%_6.84034@attbi_s01...
>
> "Shirley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > That's my question too ... why would you consciously choose to fly 30°
> off? why
> > *wouldn't* you line yourself up with the centerline (*straight*-in)?
>
> To get there faster, although from 20 miles out you probably won't notice
> any difference. Making a 30 degree turn on short final is simple - in fact
> many controllers will say "proceed directly to threshold", or some similar
> instruction while you are turning downwind to base to get you in faster if
> there is traffic in sequence behind you .
>
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:15:54 GMT, "Jim Cummiskey" >
wrote:

>I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
>(hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
>
>At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report "5
>mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn
>right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
>centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."

I would NOT report five mile *final* unless I were on the extended
centerline. And if I were in the air, and someone reported five mile
final, I would be looking for the a/c along the extended centerline -- not
2.5-3 miles North of the extended centerline.

In your situation, I would either have done a dog leg to join the extended
centerline five miles out, or requested a base entry.


--ron

[Brian Burger]

There's a difference, at least here in Canada, between 'cleared direct'
and 'cleared straight-in'. (I'm not sure if this applies to the US or
elsewhere...)

"Cleared direct [runway X]" is supposed to mean "Turn immediately toward
the threshold of [runway X]". This means that you will be off-centreline
for most of the approach.

"Cleared straight-in" is supposed to mean "Continue present course until
you intercept extended centreline of [runway X], then fly down the
centreline."

This is from a couple of instructors, including our Chief Flight
Instructor, and I've read it in at least one Canadian textbook. I can't
find anything in the AIP on a quick review, though.

Brian.
PP-ASEL/Night

[Andrew Sarangan]

The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM, but
why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an
angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict? In that case, the
controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual
separation. In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the
controller was just having a bad day.






Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:15:54 GMT, "Jim Cummiskey" >
> wrote:
>
>>I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
>>(hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
>>
>>At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I
>>report "5 mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy
>>(indeed, darn right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on
>>the extended centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful
>>about this."
>
> I would NOT report five mile *final* unless I were on the extended
> centerline. And if I were in the air, and someone reported five mile
> final, I would be looking for the a/c along the extended centerline --
> not 2.5-3 miles North of the extended centerline.
>
> In your situation, I would either have done a dog leg to join the
> extended centerline five miles out, or requested a base entry.
>
>
> --ron

[AJW]

>
>> That's my question too ... why would you consciously choose to fly 30°
>off? why
>> *wouldn't* you line yourself up with the centerline (*straight*-in)?
>
>To get there faster, although from 20 miles out you probably won't notice
>any difference. Making a 30 degree turn on short final is simple - in fact
>many controllers will say "proceed directly to threshold", or some similar
>instruction while you are turning downwind to base to get you in faster if
>there is traffic in sequence behind you .
>
Ya know, if as the subject says, cleared straight in Runway X, report Y miles
Final, it's reasonable to assume you were to report Y miles out on final, not
on a modifed base leg or something. It'd be different if the instruction was
"cleared straight in, report 5 miles.", IMHO. In the latter case, it means
coming inside the 5 mile bubble, in the former, I at least would take it to
mean "on final" not on base or an entry leg.

Yeah, it's splitting hairs. It might matter if approach had other inbound
traffic on that runway and had told them to be alert for someone 5 miles out on
a straight in. "Traffic not in sight" makes me feel very uncomfortable, if I
have to say it or I hear it from an airplane that's supposed to follow me in.

Now I'll go find some more hairs to split :)

[Brien K. Meehan]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM,
but
> why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an
> angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict?

So that the controller can plan on using the rest of the space to
sequence traffic. That's what they do.

In this case, keeping a plane on straight-in five mile final keeps the
entire downwind leg available, and planes can be sequenced both before
and after the plane on final.

If the plane went direct to the numbers and had to cross the downwind
leg (and that's the way I read it), most of the pattern would be
unusable when the plane got close. Light planes change speed quickly
too, so the time it would be unusable would be difficult to predict as
well.

> In that case, the
> controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual
> separation.

The plane was 20 miles out. A zillion things can happen before it gets
there. Issuing a traffic alert would have been pointless.

> In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the
> controller was just having a bad day.

She kept the pattern squence moving, and even the plane 20 miles out
knew (or should have known) what to expect. It sounds to me like she
was having a great day.

[Kyler Laird]

(Shirley) writes:

>That's my question too ... why would you consciously choose to fly 30° off? why
>*wouldn't* you line yourself up with the centerline (*straight*-in)?

Sometimes (but obviously not in this case) controllers will ask to
"take it to the numbers." It's one of my favorite requests.

--kyler

[OtisWinslow]

I would interpret her clearance to mean I should report
5 miles out on the extended runway center line. There
could be traffic issues that caused her to request you follow
this path to the runway.


"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:
>
> I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
Prescott,
> AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles
> final."
>
> I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
> (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
>
> At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
"5
> mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn
> right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
> centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."
>
> Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
> Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .
>
> (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
> extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
> (sounds like a base to me).
>
> or
>
> (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
> "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.
>
> I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it
> seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to
> work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
> dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
> definition is right?
>
> Regards, Jim
>
>
>

[Kobra]

She said cleared "straight in" for runway 21L. That (to me) is to come in
on the final approach path, i.e. extended runway centerline. I think tower
controllers always give you a position to enter the airport traffic pattern.
They either give you a downwind, base or "straight in" (i.e. final).

In your situation I think I would have adjusted course to intercept the
final approach fix or the runway centerline 5 miles out which ever was
greater.

Further, it might have been a concern of hers that from your position 240
degrees coming in to 21L you would cross the final approach path of 21R on
short final. If she assumed you'd be on the extended center line of 21L she
might have cleared someone on 21R at the same time making a dangerous
situation.

Kobra
(no expert)


"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:
>
> I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
Prescott,
> AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles
> final."
>
> I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
> (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
>
> At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
"5
> mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn
> right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
> centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."
>
> Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
> Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .
>
> (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
> extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
> (sounds like a base to me).
>
> or
>
> (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
> "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.
>
> I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it
> seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to
> work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
> dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
> definition is right?
>
> Regards, Jim
>
>
>

[Shirley]

Mike Adams wrote:
>More likely is what others have said - by staying
>on the centerline, they have more flexibility to
>sequence traffic on the left downwind, and others
>can spot you easier if you're in a predictable
>location.

Others spotting you easier where most would look if they hear someone is making
a "straight-in" approach is the best reason, IMO.

Something similar happened to me today at an uncontrolled airport that brought
this discussion to mind. As I was about to enter the 45 for a left downwind, I
heard another aircraft announcing that they were on the left downwind. I
scanned the entire area but did not have them in sight. I announced when I was
on the 45, still looking. As I entered the downwind, I announced and asked the
other aircraft for an update on their position. He said he was on an "extended
downwind, about to turn base." I looked everywhere, but expected to see him
more or less way in front of me and/or to the left as he made his left base
turn. Instead, I finally saw him coming across from my right (I was still on
downwind) making what I would describe as a *diagonal* combination base/final
straight from some point WAY out to my right!

Of course, he was considerably further than 30° off of the centerline, but more
important was that his description wasn't accurate for where he was or what he
was doing. IMO, he was on a *WIDE* downwind, which he didn't say, and he didn't
"turn base," he just flew a diagonal line to the runway! I interpret "extended
downwind" to mean traveling further downwind before turning base, not flying
the downwind 1.5 miles away from the runway.

If I were an ATC today, I sure would have said something, too!

[Jim Cummiskey]

Thanks for your comments, Peter. Here's my thoughts:

> Frankly, I don't see how "be careful about this" is patronizing or
otherwise
> indicates a person having a bad day.

It was a matter of her tone. Like most pilots, I like to think I know what
I'm doing. And, when I'm doing things right, I don't like a controller
"correcting" me--especially what I feel is an uncivil and patronizing tone.
The real issue is: "Was I right?" Based on the many responses, there
appears to be some difference of opinion on that.

> commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper
procedure
> (which he obviously did not know prior).

IS this the proper procedure? Pilots tend to resolve things definitively on
this forum by quoting the FAR, AIM, or other appropriate authority. In the
absence of such explicit guidance, we can only offer opinion backed by
informed logic and experience. So, let me restate: Where does it
unequivocally state that being on the extended center line is a requirement
for a "straight-in" VFR approach? If so, please define "on the extended
center line" for me. How close is close enough? 10 ft? 100 ft? 1/4 mile?
30 degrees at 20 miles? Perhaps some of the folks on this forum can just
fly much more precisely than I do <g>. Indeed, that is why I believe in the
IFR domain, the definition of "straight-in" includes the 30 degrees. This
provides for a REASONABLE definition of "straight-in" that clearly should be
sufficient for VFR applications.

Regards, Jim

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> . 158...
> >
> > The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM, but
> > why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an
> > angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict?
>
> I think the most important answer is for the same reason it's important to
> report your CORRECT position while at an uncontrolled field: it simplifies
> the business of actually SEEING the airplane reporting their position.
The
> tower is just as interested in seeing you as other airplanes are. If you
> are not where you claim to be, that's a problem, and a rather serious one
at
> that.
>
> Other reasons include things like other traffic in the vicinity (though
the
> tower controller is not tasked with separating airborne traffic, they
still
> do help with that), trying to keep traffic away from noise-sensitive
areas,
> or sequencing (trying to help along the process of airplanes arriving at
the
> runway with an even spacing).
>
> Bottom line, there are a number of reasons the controller might care that
> you report the correct position.
>
> > In that case, the
> > controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual
> > separation. In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the
> > controller was just having a bad day.
>
> It wasn't necessarily other traffic that was an issue, this time. But
even
> if it was, the controller may well have expected Jim to be somewhere
> different, in a position that would not have required a traffic alert be
> issued to him. Perhaps the controllers comments were along the lines of
> "this didn't matter this time, but you should get it right next time,
> because it might matter then".
>
> Frankly, I don't see how "be careful about this" is patronizing or
otherwise
> indicates a person having a bad day. I have had to deal with controllers
> who were genuinely having a bad day, and they were downright abusive. A
> pilot *should* be careful about reporting an incorrect position, and by
> commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper
procedure
> (which he obviously did not know prior).
>
> He used words like "snippy" and "rude" and "patronizing", but until I hear
> the tape, I'm not going to take his word for it. None of the *words* he
> quoted indicate any of those things, and the controller was well within
her
> rights to point out Jim's error. It's just as likely that Jim was being
> defensive about his own actions, coloring his interpretation of what the
> controller said.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Jim Cummiskey]

> If the plane went direct to the numbers and had to cross the downwind
> leg (and that's the way I read it), most of the pattern would be
> unusable when the plane got close

Actually, no. If you think about it, if you approach the numbers at a ~30
deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a ~45 deg angle,
there will be no conflict whatsover.

Regards, Jim


"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM,
> but
> > why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an
> > angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict?
>
> So that the controller can plan on using the rest of the space to
> sequence traffic. That's what they do.
>
> In this case, keeping a plane on straight-in five mile final keeps the
> entire downwind leg available, and planes can be sequenced both before
> and after the plane on final.
>
> If the plane went direct to the numbers and had to cross the downwind
> leg (and that's the way I read it), most of the pattern would be
> unusable when the plane got close. Light planes change speed quickly
> too, so the time it would be unusable would be difficult to predict as
> well.
>
> > In that case, the
> > controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual
> > separation.
>
> The plane was 20 miles out. A zillion things can happen before it gets
> there. Issuing a traffic alert would have been pointless.
>
> > In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the
> > controller was just having a bad day.
>
> She kept the pattern squence moving, and even the plane 20 miles out
> knew (or should have known) what to expect. It sounds to me like she
> was having a great day.
>

[Jim Cummiskey]

>Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard
> to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final"

John, IMHO, I was "on final." The whole point I'm trying to make is that I
don't believe you have to be precisely on the extended center line to be on
final. Rather, to me "Cleared Straight-In" implies that you should not make
a downwind or base turn, but simply fly direct to the airport, align
yourself with the runway, and land. I also don't agree you are necessarily
any "harder to find" on final if you are offset within 30 deg.

> from which
> you *must* make a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final?

If the prospect of making a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final
fills you with dread, you should never try to land a Pitts (which routinely
requires you to slip it in while offset from the centerline). Also, why
necessarily wait until short final to make an abrupt low altitude turn? One
could simply turn gradually and gracefully in a shallow bank turn to end up
aligned with the extended center line. Hardly dangerous.

> Common
> sense, prudence, and professional practice would all lead you to a point
on
> the extended centerline some miles out from the field.

Un huh. I suppose the absolutely correct thing for me to have done was to
setup a waypoint in my GPS exactly five miles out from the numbers on the
extended center line and fly direct to that. Please. I prefer to do more
meaningful things when I'm close to an airport (like look for traffic).

> It costs you nothing
> to do so, and makes the system simpler and safer.

Actually, it costs you about one minute more flying. May not seem like a
lot to you, but after 26 hours of flying to KOSH and back, every minute
seems valuable.

Regards, Jim

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> >
> > I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise
(it
> > seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought
to
> > work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
> > dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
> > definition is right?
>
> There may be some rule or combination of rules and definitions that would
> allow you to fly direct from present position to the threshold, but why
> would you want to? Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard
> to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final", and B) from
which
> you *must* make a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final?Common
> sense, prudence, and professional practice would all lead you to a point
on
> the extended centerline some miles out from the field. It costs you
nothing
> to do so, and makes the system simpler and safer.
>
>

[Jim Cummiskey]

> STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by interception
of
> the extended runway centerline (final approach course) without executing
any
> other portion of the traffic pattern.

Thanks, Steven. Just to be clear, what source are you quoting this from?
Also, I must point out that my approach and landing met this criteria. I
"intercepted the extended runway centerline without executing any other
portion of the traffic pattern." In this case, I chose to intercept the
extended runway centerline at approximately 1/4 mile from the numbers, while
reporting a "Five Mile Final" when I was five miles from doing so. The
issue is: Was this correct? Or, must a pilot literally intercept the
extended center line at a specific distance (which some on this forum seem
to assume that the controller implied when she directed me to "Report 5
miles final")?

Regards, Jim


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:
> >
> > I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
> > Prescott, AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L,
> > Report 5 miles final."
> >
>
> What did she clear you for? "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L" is not an
> approach or landing clearance.
>
>
> >
> > I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
> > (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
> >
> > At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
> "5
> > mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed,
darn
> > right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
> > centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."
> >
>
> Well, she's right about not being on final. "Final" means that an
aircraft
> is on the final approach course or is aligned with the runway.
>
>
> >
> > Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
> > Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .
> >
> > (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
> > extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
> > (sounds like a base to me).
> >
> > or
> >
> > (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
> > "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.
> >
>
> "Straight-in" by itself is undefined, but there are other defined terms
that
> include it.
>
> STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR- An instrument approach wherein final approach is
> begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily
> completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing
> minimums.
>
> STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by interception
of
> the extended runway centerline (final approach course) without executing
any
> other portion of the traffic pattern.
>
> STRAIGHT-IN LANDING- A landing made on a runway aligned within 30° of the
> final approach course following completion of an instrument approach.
>
>
> >
> > I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise
(it
> > seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought
to
> > work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
> > dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
> > definition is right?
> >
>
> For VFR purposes, you're not on "final" until you're aligned with the
> runway. She instructed you to report a five mile final, which you would
> never be on unless you altered your course to the airport.
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> [...] So, let me restate: Where does it
> unequivocally state that being on the extended center line is a
requirement
> for a "straight-in" VFR approach?

You were told to report "5 mile final". Regardless of what you think a
"straight-in approach is" (and frankly, I find your equivocating on that
point mind boggling...I never saw a straight line that had a 30 degree bend
in it), a "5 mile final" is *only* a point on the runway's extended
centerline 5 miles out. There is no ambiguity.

Your continued defensiveness on the question definitely causes me to
question your interpretation of the controllers communication to you as
well. You are obviously sore about the incident, and are trying very hard
to come out as the person in the right, in spite of considerable clear
evidence to the contrary.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, no. If you think about it, if you approach the numbers at a ~30
> deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a ~45 deg
angle,
> there will be no conflict whatsover.

How do you figure that? Firstly, the "45 degree key point" taught students
for where to turn base is just a rule of thumb...base turns are made much
earlier and much later than that, depending on factors other than just
following a rote procedure.

Secondly, the flight path of an airplane flying 90 degrees to the runway
heading on base intersects the flight path of an airplane flying 30 degrees
to the runway heading, heading straight for the numbers. Since the flight
paths intersect, there certainly IS a potential for a conflict.

I'd agree that the odds of there being a conflict on the downwind leg
(rather than the base leg) are low (though not nonexistent since extended
downwinds are a common enough procedure, especially at towered airports),
but to say that "there will be no conflict whatsoever" is hugely and
inappropriately optimistic.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> >Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard
> > to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final"
>
> John, IMHO, I was "on final."

The definition of "final" clearly indicates that you were not.

> The whole point I'm trying to make is that I
> don't believe you have to be precisely on the extended center line to be
on
> final.

Then you'd better start lobbying the FAA to change the pilot/controller
glossary. It does not current agree with your belief.

> Rather, to me "Cleared Straight-In" implies that you should not make
> a downwind or base turn, but simply fly direct to the airport, align
> yourself with the runway, and land.

Align yourself with the runway, yes. Do it 100 feet from the numbers, no.
If you've been told to report a "5 mile final", you need to be aligned with
the runway by the time you're 5 miles from the runway.

> I also don't agree you are necessarily
> any "harder to find" on final if you are offset within 30 deg.

You are free to disagree, of course. But that doesn't make it true. If you
tell someone you are at a position aligned with the runway, and you are
actually 2.5 miles away from that position, that makes it VERY hard to find
you.

> [...]
> Un huh. I suppose the absolutely correct thing for me to have done was to
> setup a waypoint in my GPS exactly five miles out from the numbers on the
> extended center line and fly direct to that. Please. I prefer to do
more
> meaningful things when I'm close to an airport (like look for traffic).

If you can't look at your chart and identify a position 5 miles away from
the airport on the extended runway centerline, you have no business flying
an airplane. You should not need a GPS to comply with the controller's
instructions.

> Actually, it costs you about one minute more flying. May not seem like a
> lot to you, but after 26 hours of flying to KOSH and back, every minute
> seems valuable.

That's got to be the most ridiculous part of your defense I've heard so far.
Both because 60 seconds is a trivial amount of extra time, no matter how far
you've flown, and because from 20 miles out, adjusting your flight path to
aim for a true 5 mile final adding 60 seconds to your flight time means you
are cruising at about 60 knots. If you are flying something that cruises at
60 knots and you can't stand an extra 60 seconds of flight, you have the
wrong airplane.

In any case, you would have been well within your rights to decline the
controller's instruction and request a true point-to-point straight flight
from your position to the runway. The question here isn't whether it was
reasonable to ask you to deviate, but whether you even understand that you
were asked to do so.

The more I read your responses in this thread, the more I wonder if you are
really genuinely interested in learning the actual answer to your question.
It sure doesn't seem like you are.

Pete

[Jim Cummiskey]

> What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees
> to the runway? Probably not good job'... ;)

Well, let's see. I got on the ground efficiently and precisely with the
minimum amount of fuel and time required. It was a completely safe
operation, and consistent with my understanding of the FARs and common
sense. Since I do hold a CFI ticket, that's exactly what I would have said
<g> There's a big difference between teaching a student to fly precise
legs in the pattern, and the real-world of getting from A to B.

> What if ATC replies 'make left traffic, report 5 mile left base'?
> Would you have driven straight for the numbers?

Nope, I would have driven straight for the normal point in the pattern where
one turns from base to final (approximately 1/2 mile from the numbers at a
45 deg angle to the runway). Actually, your question (although deliberately
smart-alecky and inane), really brings this problem into base relief. Are
you suggesting that I should have picked a point on the EXTENDED BASE 5
miles away and flown to that? If so, I see that as clearly just as wrong as
the "Report Y Miles Final" issue. In my view, a pilot should fly DIRECT to
the turning points in the pattern, NOT artifically extended just because the
controller really wants to know, "When will you be about five miles away?"
Thus, my decision to fly DIRECT to the point in the pattern where one turns
from base to final seems justifiable (while reporting five miles away from
the airport). Thoughts?

Regards, Jim

"HankC" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
>...
> > Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:
> >
> > I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
Prescott,
> > AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles
> > final."
> >
> > I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
> > (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
> >
> > At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
"5
> > mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed,
darn
> > right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
> > centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."
>
> What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees
> to the runway? Probably not good job'... ;)
>
> What if ATC replies 'make left traffic, report 5 mile left base'?
> Would you have driven straight for the numbers?
>
>
> HankC
>
>
>
> HankC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > The purpose of quotation marks is to enclose a direct quotation. There
> was
> > nothing in the message that indicated it was not a direct quotation or
> that
> > the punctuation was improperly used.
>
> So what? In what way does that guarantee an accurate quote?
>

Quotation marks are used to indicate a direct quote. That is their reason
for existing. Why do you assume he used them improperly? What did you
interpret as an indication of an inaccurate quote? Why do you believe the
controller said something other than what he indicated?


>
> It's funny...given how much time you spend nitpicking what other people
say,
> I find it amazing how willing you are to trust someone else implicitly
when
> they quote a third party, without any sort of reference to back that quote
> up.
>

Why must there be another reference?

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Quotation marks are used to indicate a direct quote. That is their reason
> for existing. Why do you assume he used them improperly?

I did not.

[Newps]

Jim Cummiskey wrote:
>>Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard
>>to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final"
>
>
> John, IMHO, I was "on final." The whole point I'm trying to make is that I
> don't believe you have to be precisely on the extended center line to be on
> final. Rather, to me "Cleared Straight-In" implies that you should not make
> a downwind or base turn, but simply fly direct to the airport, align
> yourself with the runway, and land. I also don't agree you are necessarily
> any "harder to find" on final if you are offset within 30 deg.

You are correct.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did not.
>

Of course you did. Read your messages.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper
> > procedure (which he obviously did not know prior).
> >
>
> IS this the proper procedure? Pilots tend to resolve things definitively
> on this forum by quoting the FAR, AIM, or other appropriate authority.
> In the absence of such explicit guidance, we can only offer opinion
> backed by informed logic and experience. So, let me restate: Where
> does it unequivocally state that being on the extended center line is a
> requirement for a "straight-in" VFR approach?
>

You'll find it in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, which is an addendum to the
Aeronautical Information Manual and FAA Orders 7110.10 Flight Services and
7110.65 Air Traffic Control.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by interception of
the extended runway centerline (final approach course) without executing any
other portion of the traffic pattern.


>
> If so, please define "on the extended center line" for me.
>

What is there that you feel needs defining?


>
> How close is close enough? 10 ft? 100 ft? 1/4 mile?
> 30 degrees at 20 miles?
>

How silly do you want to get?


>
> Perhaps some of the folks on this forum can just fly much more
> precisely than I do <g>.
>

Perhaps.


>
> Indeed, that is why I believe in the IFR domain, the definition of
> "straight-in" includes the 30 degrees. This provides for a
> REASONABLE definition of "straight-in" that clearly should
> be sufficient for VFR applications.
>

Different operation, different definition.

STRAIGHT-IN LANDING- A landing made on a runway aligned within 30° of the
final approach course following completion of an instrument approach.

The Pilot/Controller Glossary was created to promote a common understanding
of the terms used in the Air Traffic Control system. You should understand
and be familiar with all terms that may be used in any operation you might
engage in.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern
> > by interception of the extended runway centerline (final approach
> > course) without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.
> >
>
> Thanks, Steven. Just to be clear, what source are you quoting this from?
>

It's from the Pilot/Controller Glossary, you'll find it in the back of the
AIM.


>
> Also, I must point out that my approach and landing met this criteria. I
> "intercepted the extended runway centerline without executing any other
> portion of the traffic pattern." In this case, I chose to intercept the
> extended runway centerline at approximately 1/4 mile from the numbers,
> while reporting a "Five Mile Final" when I was five miles from doing so.
> The issue is: Was this correct? Or, must a pilot literally intercept the
> extended center line at a specific distance (which some on this forum seem
> to assume that the controller implied when she directed me to "Report 5
> miles final")?
>

No, it was not correct. The controller instructed you to "Report 5 miles
final." To comply with that instruction you must report "five mile final"
when you're five miles out AND ALIGNED WITH THE RUNWAY. You didn't do that.
You reported "5 mile final" when you were 5 miles from the airport and
still offset from the centerline by thirty degrees. You did not comply with
the controller's instruction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees
> > to the runway? Probably not good job'... ;)
> >
>
> Well, let's see. I got on the ground efficiently and precisely with the
> minimum amount of fuel and time required. It was a completely safe
> operation, and consistent with my understanding of the FARs and common
> sense. Since I do hold a CFI ticket, that's exactly what I would have
> said <g> There's a big difference between teaching a student to fly
precise
> legs in the pattern, and the real-world of getting from A to B.
>

You were instructed to report a five mile final. You did not comply with
that instruction. You violated FAR 91.123(b).

"Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an
ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
>
> John, IMHO, I was "on final."

Jim, you asked the question, and received many answers from people with far
broader experience than your own, the preponderance of which disagreed with
your opinion. These you refuse to accept. So be it.

Try thinking of yourself as one of many many pilots who make up the entire
aviation system, instead of one pilot with an inviolable right to fly
wherever, whenever. You also ought to rethink this idea you seem to have
that you can interpret the regs as you see fit. Things will be smoother.

You strike me as a very smart amateur who just loves to second guess and
think to death little perceived cracks in the regulatory structure -- the
kind of person who gave rise years ago to all the old jokes about Doctors
and Bonanzas.

I wish you luck with your future flying.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Jim Cummiskey wrote:

> Actually, no.

Actually, yes.

> If you think about it ...

What makes you think I haven't?

> ... if you approach the numbers at a ~30
> deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a ~45 deg
angle,
> there will be no conflict whatsover.

When you reach the point in your training where you start flying at
towered airports, you'll discover that there's no such thing as a
"proper" pattern. Downwind and base legs (as well as upwind and
crosswind legs) are extended and shortened for a wide variety of
reasons, to allow planes in and out of the airport effectively.
Especially when the airport is busy.

You'll also discover that there are larger, faster airplanes - some
even with jet engines - that fly larger patterns, and that can affect
(and can be affected by) traffic farther away from the airport. You
may have already discovered this flying around the pattern at your home
airport. If not, you may want to discuss this with your instructor
before he lets you solo.

Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the
downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway.

It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For
example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could
collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers.

On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile
final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern
configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower
controller to ask for it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the
> downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway.
>
> It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For
> example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could
> collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers.
>
> On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile
> final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern
> configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower
> controller to ask for it.
>

It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic.

[Neil Gould]

Hi,

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually, no. If you think about it, if you approach the numbers at
>> a ~30 deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a
>> ~45 deg angle, there will be no conflict whatsover.
>
> How do you figure that? Firstly, the "45 degree key point" taught
> students for where to turn base is just a rule of thumb...base turns
> are made much earlier and much later than that, depending on factors
> other than just following a rote procedure.
>
> Secondly, the flight path of an airplane flying 90 degrees to the
> runway heading on base intersects the flight path of an airplane
> flying 30 degrees to the runway heading, heading straight for the
> numbers. Since the flight paths intersect, there certainly IS a
> potential for a conflict.
>
This thoery is correct, AFAICT. However, in practice that should get the
controller issuing such a clearance fired. I don't *ever* want to be on a
straight-in 5 mile final if other traffic is going to wind up on some
random variant of base at the same time. That said, There are many times
at controlled airports (and even more at uncontrolled airports) when there
are aircraft on base and final (and everywhere else) at the same time. The
controllers call out those positions and issue a clearance if the other
traffic is in sight. I've also had controllers call my base turn during
heavy traffic.

IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing. As Jim hasn't mentioned
whether there was other traffic inbound or in the pattern, I'd think that
would be an important factor in whether he was right or wrong to be
off-center. If there was no traffic, there'd be no conflict and the
controller was just being manipulative. If there was traffic, and the
controller didn't call it out, that might be grounds for complaint. After
all is said and done, the FARs make it quite clear who the PIC is, and one
requirement is that they're in the cockpit.

Neil

[Judah]

I think Steven interprets the parenthetic reference to "final approach
course" as a definition of Final Approach Course as the Extended Runway
Centerline.

Whether that is a valid definition and a true requirement could come into
question, but I'm inclined to agree with Steven on this one. IMHO, if a
request from Tower for a "straight in approach" was the same as a request
from Tower for "straight for the numbers", one of the two terms would not
be used.

I've found in my few years of flying that the cost of 60 seconds in the air
is generally cheaper than the cost of compromising safety and/or breaking
rules...


"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in
:

>> STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by
>> interception of the extended runway centerline (final approach course)
>> without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.
>
> Thanks, Steven. Just to be clear, what source are you quoting this
> from? Also, I must point out that my approach and landing met this
> criteria. I "intercepted the extended runway centerline without
> executing any other portion of the traffic pattern." In this case, I
> chose to intercept the extended runway centerline at approximately 1/4
> mile from the numbers, while reporting a "Five Mile Final" when I was
> five miles from doing so. The issue is: Was this correct? Or, must
> a pilot literally intercept the extended center line at a specific
> distance (which some on this forum seem to assume that the controller
> implied when she directed me to "Report 5 miles final")?
>
> Regards, Jim
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks
>> > ago:
>> >
>> > I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
>> > Prescott, AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L,
>> > Report 5 miles final."
>> >
>>
>> What did she clear you for? "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L" is not
>> an approach or landing clearance.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately
>> > 240 (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
>> >
>> > At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I
>> > report "5 mile final." She questions my position and gets all
>> > snippy (indeed, darn right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am
>> > not on the extended centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be
>> > "careful about this."
>> >
>>
>> Well, she's right about not being on final. "Final" means that an
>> aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with the
>> runway.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X
>> > miles Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .
>> >
>> > (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on
>> > the extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then
>> > report (sounds like a base to me).
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers
>> > (thus "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.
>> >
>>
>> "Straight-in" by itself is undefined, but there are other defined
>> terms that include it.
>>
>> STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR- An instrument approach wherein final
>> approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not
>> necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to
>> straight-in landing minimums.
>>
>> STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by
>> interception of the extended runway centerline (final approach course)
>> without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.
>>
>> STRAIGHT-IN LANDING- A landing made on a runway aligned within 30° of
>> the final approach course following completion of an instrument
>> approach.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought
>> > otherwise (it seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR
>> > domain, it ought to work well enough for VFR situations).
>> > Regardless, it is potentially dangerous when controllers and pilots
>> > define things differently. Which definition is right?
>> >
>>
>> For VFR purposes, you're not on "final" until you're aligned with the
>> runway. She instructed you to report a five mile final, which you
>> would never be on unless you altered your course to the airport.
>>
>>
>
>

[John Gaquin]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> ....a very quick,
> through, competent, intelligent individual... [who] manages his own
[__________]

Your descriptive above exactly applies to the type of accomplished
professionals in other fields (such as physicians, or programmers) who may
well think themselves smarter than the aviation system. However, your fine
personal commendation would outweigh what may be my misinterpretation of the
simple printed word. If I have done so I apologize to Mr. Cumminsky.

>
> Perhaps the root of the confusion stems from the two disparate
> meanings for the same term 'Final' under IFR and VFR.

I'm not sure. IFR and VFR are two different worlds, and ought not be that
easily confused. The IFR discuss and define 'approach segments', etc.,
while the VFR do not, as I recall. Perhaps back one step further, I think
to the tome that used to be referred to as the 'TERPS manual'; to the
standard that allows an established instrument approach to be defined as
'straight-in' if aligned within 30 degrees of the runway. You could be on a
final approach segment under IFR while off centerline by 25 degrees, but
that definition would not carry over to "being on final approach" under VFR.

[AJW]

>
>"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the
>> downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway.
>>
>> It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For
>> example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could
>> collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers.
>>
>> On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile
>> final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern
>> configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower
>> controller to ask for it.
>>
>
>It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic.
>
Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in error.
The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made some
readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean.

As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and
tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a
long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a
landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I
told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight.

[Bill Denton]

Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your
eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your
eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your
night vision.

If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on
an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing
separation.

If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself
as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night.

If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and
controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability.

It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your
entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the
larger picture.



"AJW" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the
> >> downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway.
> >>
> >> It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For
> >> example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could
> >> collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile
> >> final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern
> >> configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower
> >> controller to ask for it.
> >>
> >
> >It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic.
> >
> Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in
error.
> The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made
some
> readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean.
>
> As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and
> tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was
a
> long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a
> landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision.
I
> told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in
sight.
>

[HankC]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message >...
> > What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees
> > to the runway? Probably not good job'... ;)
>
> Well, let's see. I got on the ground efficiently and precisely with the
> minimum amount of fuel and time required.

That happens to me all the time. It does not mean that every flying
decision I make is correct ;)

> It was a completely safe
> operation, and consistent with my understanding of the FARs and common
> sense. Since I do hold a CFI ticket, that's exactly what I would have said
> <g> There's a big difference between teaching a student to fly precise
> legs in the pattern, and the real-world of getting from A to B.
>
> > What if ATC replies 'make left traffic, report 5 mile left base'?
> > Would you have driven straight for the numbers?
>
> Nope, I would have driven straight for the normal point in the pattern where
> one turns from base to final (approximately 1/2 mile from the numbers at a
> 45 deg angle to the runway). Actually, your question (although deliberately
> smart-alecky and inane), really brings this problem into base relief. Are
> you suggesting that I should have picked a point on the EXTENDED BASE 5
> miles away and flown to that? If so, I see that as clearly just as wrong as
> the "Report Y Miles Final" issue. In my view, a pilot should fly DIRECT to
> the turning points in the pattern, NOT artifically extended just because the
> controller really wants to know, "When will you be about five miles away?"

Obviously, this is your view, but where is documentation or FARs that
show it to be a true view?

Flying from 20 miles NE to the point 5 miles out on the RW centerline
is a bit less than 16 miles.

So rather than flying 20 miles in a straight line you fly 21 miles in
a pair of lines...


> Thus, my decision to fly DIRECT to the point in the pattern where one turns
> from base to final seems justifiable (while reporting five miles away from
> the airport). Thoughts?

My thoughts are what happens to subsequent inbound traffic on a long
left base told to look for traffic on a long 5-mile final?


HankC

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Jim Cummiskey" > writes:

> [...] If so, please define "on the extended center line" for me.
> How close is close enough? 10 ft? 100 ft? 1/4 mile? 30 degrees
> at 20 miles? Perhaps some of the folks on this forum can just fly
> much more precisely than I do <g>. [...]

30 degrees at 20 miles translates to about 10 miles off the extended
centerline. That would be wide by a space larger than the entire
control zone. 30 degrees at 5 miles is 2.5, which is wider than the
entire typical VFR circuit. Does this basic trigonometry help put your
error into perspective?

- FChE

[AJW]

>
>Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your
>eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your
>eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your
>night vision.
>
>If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on
>an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing
>separation.
>
>If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself
>as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night.
>
>If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and
>controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability.
>
>It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your
>entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the
>larger picture.
>
>
>
>"AJW" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and
>> tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was
>a
>> long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a
>> landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision.
>I
>> told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in
>sight.
>>
>
Sorry, but in the circumstances I cited, I told the tower They'd get no light
until I was out of the clouds, and they didn't complain. WhenI'm flying an
approach in clouds at night I turn off strobes, too. I do NOT fly with my eyes
shut, not even for 5 seconds.

Re traffic avoidance, it was solid IFR, I think the ceiling had to have been
about 300 feet or so. I don't remember if there was someone at the threshold
waiting to go, although it's likely with approach painting me a ciouple of
miles out that they'd have realeased someone for take off.

I think in this case I made the right decision, but it'll be interesting to see
what others here will say.

[HankC]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message >...
> > What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees
> > to the runway? Probably not good job'... ;)
>
> Well, let's see. I got on the ground efficiently and precisely with the
> minimum amount of fuel and time required. It was a completely safe
> operation, and consistent with my understanding of the FARs and common
> sense. Since I do hold a CFI ticket, that's exactly what I would have said
> <g> There's a big difference between teaching a student to fly precise
> legs in the pattern, and the real-world of getting from A to B.
>
> > What if ATC replies 'make left traffic, report 5 mile left base'?
> > Would you have driven straight for the numbers?
>
> Nope, I would have driven straight for the normal point in the pattern where
> one turns from base to final (approximately 1/2 mile from the numbers at a
> 45 deg angle to the runway). Actually, your question (although deliberately
> smart-alecky and inane), really brings this problem into base relief.

Thank you. I was hoping to get you to look at this from different
*angle* ;)

The need to name-call those with differing opinions is telling.

> Are
> you suggesting that I should have picked a point on the EXTENDED BASE 5
> miles away and flown to that? If so, I see that as clearly just as wrong as
> the "Report Y Miles Final" issue. In my view, a pilot should fly DIRECT to
> the turning points in the pattern, NOT artifically extended just because the
> controller really wants to know, "When will you be about five miles away?"

That is not the question being asked.

The question is "When will you be about five miles out on final?"...

> Thus, my decision to fly DIRECT to the point in the pattern where one turns
> from base to final seems justifiable (while reporting five miles away from
> the airport). Thoughts?

You did not say you were flying to a "the point in the pattern where
one turns from base to final" (original post: "I fly directly towards
the numbers"). Even if you had, you imply (final-ly) that 'final' is
the RW centerline...

After all, how can one fly a 'final' to a point where base intercepts
'final' and then turn on 'final' if you were on 'final' all along?


HankC

[SeeAndAvoid]

Jim,
I'd just drop this, move on, and remember the experience. Did you get
flight following or go IFR to PRC, if so maybe I talked to you NE of
PRC. Anyway, is PRC a contract tower, I don't know, just wondering.
As far as the controller in question, a few things are possible: she
didnt say anything else about it, right? So she probably forgot about
it and moved on to other things, busy or not. If she was truly troubled
by it, but not enough to have you call in, she probably questioned
herself if she was clear enough to you in what she wanted of you.
If it was that big a deal, it'll probably be something she changes
about the clarity of her clearances, and she'll watch out for readbacks
that show the slightest amount of doubt in what's expected of the
pilot.

Personally I read alot in the tone of readbacks, even if theyre correct.
Sure, I could always say later that "hey, he read it back right, it's on
his back", but I dont like answering those kinds of questions, nor do
I like tapes pulled. Resolve it at the time if possible and move on and
do my job.

If you fly enough you know controllers and pilots both screw up. You
also know, as someone else rightly pointed out, that a controller can
be manipulative, unfairly so to make you look bad and them good. I
see it fairly often with certain personality types where I work. It's
almost as if they're setting someone up for failure for their own
kicks. I'm not implying that was the case here, might've been a power
play on her part, she mightve been genuinely surprised or alarmed
to not see you where she expected. But if there was no traffic, why
make a big deal of it. We dont have the tape, we dont know how
she put it. It could've been just her way of talking that seemed rude
to you, but wasn't her intent. If she said nothing else about it, she
didnt consider it a big deal, and neither should you.

At the risk of this post being longwinded, I'll give you a recent
example. It alone will probably flare up this topic again with
people and their opinions and references. For some reason,
this airline we regularly work started changing the way they
operate and comply with clearances out of one of our airports.
In short, they get a VFR climb on an IFR clearance and think
they can deviate 120 degrees from their IFR route, but the
clearance they request, and receive, is VFR climb on course,
which in itself is a questionable clearance in itself IMO, but
that's another story. Anyway, imagine Dept Pt A, first fix
is Pt B about 25nm away is a 200 heading, Pt C is about 100
nm away on a 050 heading. These aircraft would take off
and fly a 130 heading to join the course between B and C, or
just turn direct C. This started hapenning on a daily basis,
several times a day, different crews. Controllers were noticing,
and not particularly caring for it, but not saying anything about
it except amongst themselves. Finally, as tactfully as I could,
I asked what was up. I guess my only real beef is that they ask
for VFR climbs, the airlines I'm talking about here, but they
really only want it to climb on course (no departure procedure)
and dont want the responsibility of separating themselves, which
a VFR climb requires. But I didnt bring it up with these guys (2
different crews), I just said if all of us had the "no harm, no foul"
rule, we'd let it slide if there wasnt traffic. But the ONE time
there is traffic and this turn puts them right in its face, the crew
will have to answer as to how they perceived "as filed" meant
a deviation like this. They apologized and saw the point I was
trying to make, which is basically covering their own butts. I
told them it wouldnt go any further than that, but just ask for the
shortcut, how often is that particular one turned down? Hardly
ever. Luckily, this sector is kind of off by itself and out of the
hearing range of my supervisor. Once they hear something like
this, the "no harm, no foul" rule goes right out the window and
it's nothing but trouble for everyone involved. Phone calls, etc.

Point I'm trying to make (slowly, gradually, sorry) is that I'm
sure theres been times where I may have snipped at a pilot that
messed up, it's hapenned to me as a pilot (sometimes my mistake,
sometimes not). I cant speak for all controllers, but most I know
are over it pretty quickly, whether you stay on freq for just a
few more seconds or an hour. If I notice myself doing that, and
I get the impression the pilot feels as if he's on the verge of having
to call in or get violated, I try to make it clear that is not the case.
I only get in trouble by my conversational tone on freq, which the
supervisors hate, and I hear about regularly. Now you see why
I dont want tapes pulled? Picture hangar flying, that kind of
chit-chat, but on freq. Makes for a more enjoyable and relaxed
experience for all, and that's what I'm shooting for.

One last thought, in reference to your "it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently"
statement, more controllers should be pilots. That wont change
the definitions, but less of an "us against them" mentality that
is out there.

As usual, these are just my observations, experience, and opinions.
You guys that argue just for arguments sake, or flame for kicks, can
pound it sideways, as my main man Phil Hendrie says.
To the rest, happy flying,
Chris

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing. As Jim hasn't mentioned
> whether there was other traffic inbound or in the pattern, I'd think that
> would be an important factor in whether he was right or wrong to be
> off-center. If there was no traffic, there'd be no conflict and the
> controller was just being manipulative. If there was traffic, and the
> controller didn't call it out, that might be grounds for complaint. After
> all is said and done, the FARs make it quite clear who the PIC is, and one
> requirement is that they're in the cockpit.
>

He's wrong whether or not there was other traffic. He did not follow the
controller's instruction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think Steven interprets the parenthetic reference to "final approach
> course" as a definition of Final Approach Course as the Extended Runway
> Centerline.
>

Steven did not interpret anything. Steven posted the definition.


>
> Whether that is a valid definition and a true requirement could come into
> question,
>

Why? What's open to question?

[Peter Duniho]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Please enlighten me...
>
> What can happen in five seconds?

That's about as much time as any decent instructor needs to put the plane
into an unusual attitude during instrument flight training. You never know
when you're going to fly through some wind shear that would do the same
thing.

In any case, the idea that a pilot should close their eyes during flight is
just silly, especially when there's nothing useful to be gained from it.

Pete

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> [...]
>> IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing.
>
> *At the runway*. Elsewhere, it is up to the pilots in command to
> ensure traffic avoidance.
>
In order to do that, all aircraft in controlled airspace are "controlled".

> [...]
> And you may be right that the controller should be fired if they
> create such a situation, but if you don't follow the controller's
> instruction and wind up dead, who do you think is going to feel
> worse? You, or the controller? I know I'd rather be fired than dead.
>
No argument, there.

> Whatever else you may think about the situation, it's a serious
> problem when a controller issues an instruction that is simply not
> even comprehended. In this case, the instruction used a standard
> phrase, so the error was the pilot's.
>
I agree. I'm not defending the decision to fly 30 degrees off-center to
the threshold. But, I do wonder whether we have all the information that
would allow us to reach a conclusion that it was an error, as opposed to a
poor choice? There are more than a few airports where it would be
inadvisable, if not impossible to execute such an instruction by a strict
interpretation of the AIM's descriptions of "Straight in". That may be why
it appears in there and not in the FARs? If it's not in the FARs, it's at
least a point of discussion rather than an infraction.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:11:23 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
> wrote in
et>::

>more controllers should be pilots.

And, the corollary, more pilots should be familiar with Order 7110.65,
is also true.

[John Gaquin]

"AJW" > wrote in message

Just a thought, without trying to start anything. You're in cloud at night.
You're about to break out to a vision of some kind of bright light patterns
associated with an ILS, possibly with rabbits.

Why are you concerned with preserving night vision?

[Peter Duniho]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps you meant another word. Anything "regulatory" requires
> publication in the Federal Register in proposed form for public
> comment.

The controller's handbook "regulates" what each and every controller must
do.

As for your claim that "anything 'regulatory' requires publication in the
Federal Register", that's simply false. For example, changes to the
Practical Test Standards are not required to be published, but they are very
much regulatory.

In any case, this particular nit has nothing to do with the core topic at
hand, even if there was a point to it.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Now, why
> the FAA doesn't just change the class D rules to protect themselves I
> can't explain. Seems like after banging your head on the wall for a
> while you may want to change some things.

Seems like, I'd agree. Of course, as you and I both know, the US courts
grant incorrect judgments all the time, especially when it comes to
liability issues. :( I'm not sure making the Class D rules more explicit
would help things.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message

>> I agree. I'm not defending the decision to fly 30 degrees off-center
>> to the threshold. But, I do wonder whether we have all the
>> information that would allow us to reach a conclusion that it was an
>> error, as opposed to a poor choice?
>
> Not sure what you mean there. All we can base our observations on is
> what Jim has posted. He's specifically said that the controller told
> him to be at a position that he never wound up at. That's an error
> AND a poor choice.
>
You're placing the entire responsibility on Jim. Interesting that Steven's
replies do not. Since he stated that he is a tower controller, I think I'd
go with his interpretation of Jim's situation. Of course, the plot only
thickens if you are *both* ATCs. ;-)

Neil

[Bill Denton]

O.K, O.K. Maybe closing your eyes for five seconds may not be the best idea
I've ever come up with. Guess I should have thought that one through a
little better.

Mea culpa...



"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your
> eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your
> eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your
> night vision.
>
> If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are
on
> an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing
> separation.
>
> If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation
yourself
> as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night.
>
> If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and
> controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability.
>
> It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your
> entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the
> larger picture.
>
>
>
> "AJW" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the
> > >> downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway.
> > >>
> > >> It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For
> > >> example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could
> > >> collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers.
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile
> > >> final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern
> > >> configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a
tower
> > >> controller to ask for it.
> > >>
> > >
> > >It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic.
> > >
> > Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in
> error.
> > The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made
> some
> > readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean.
> >
> > As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark,
and
> > tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this
was
> a
> > long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower --
a
> > landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night
vision.
> I
> > told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in
> sight.
> >
>
>

[AJW]

You've earned my respect, Bill.



>
>O.K, O.K. Maybe closing your eyes for five seconds may not be the best idea
>I've ever come up with. Guess I should have thought that one through a
>little better.
>
>Mea culpa...
>
>
>
>"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>> Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your
>> eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your
>> eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your
>> night vision.
>>

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> You're placing the entire responsibility on Jim. Interesting that Steven's
> replies do not.

Not sure how you get that. I am saying essentially the same thing Steven
said (for example) when he wrote "He's wrong whether or not there was other
traffic. He did not follow the controller's instruction."

Perhaps you'd share with us where you feel that Steven is assigning
responsibility with the controller. Surely you don't think the difference
between a "clearance" and an actual clearance is significant here? Even
assuming the controller actually said "cleared", which I give only 50/50
probability of actually having happened.

Pete

[Jim Cummiskey]

Okay, I'll give it one more go. Like many of you, I am fascinated by this
passion for flight that occupies many of our souls. I started this thread
to present a real-world flying example that I thought some of you would find
interesting. Judging by the many different perspectives presented, many of
you seem quite engaged by the topic. Initially, I also hoped to learn
something, and share a possible flying error that I thought I may have
committed, so that others could potentially learn something. And, yes, I am
an ATP/CFII who's very lucky to be able to fly an aerobatic,
high-performance, complex, taildragger from Mexico to Canada--and everywhere
in between. I'm fairly experienced, but that doesn't mean that I don't make
constant mistakes while flying (like all of you).

Of course, USENET has its limitations (not the least of which is having to
occasionally come into contact with rude, over-bearing people who insist on
making presumptuous personal attacks in their zeal to convince people how
much smarter they are than anyone else). I won't engage in similar
behavior, but I think everyone knows the individuals I'm talking about. For
those of you who have approached this topic professionally, without
resorting to such uncivil conduct, I thank you for your insights and
thoughts. I'm always amazed at how the relative anonymity of the Internet
compels people to make the most absurd and offensive comments about complete
strangers. During my 20 years in the Marine Corps, such communication in
public would often end up with the offending individual picking his teeth
off the bar-room floor.

In between all the nasty comments and boorish behavior, I still think
there's a lot of valuable learning going on, so I'll persist. I think I've
been able to finally resolve the issue I originally presented (at least in
my mind).

Here's what I learned thus far, and how:

I called a Class C airport near where I reside and spoke to their "ATC
Procedures Specialist" named Doug. Doug told me many interesting things:

(1) The expression "Report 5 miles final" is not an instruction. It is
not standard phraseology, and thus it is merely a request. Hence, there was
no legal obligation to even comply with the request (certainly there was no
violation of the FARs as some of you seem to believe). Moreover, Doug
believes there is never a requirement to fly to a precise spot on the
extended centerline during a VFR final approach (as some of you so
passionately have stated repeatedly)--regardless of whether the controller
makes this "Report X miles Final" REQUEST.

(2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45 degree
cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the centerline at
any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME point to land
the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile from the numbers).

I then called KPRC, and spoke to a very cordial gentlemen named Mr. Paul
Wirdsky (sp?), who is assigned as the Tower Manager. He is the supervisor
of the controller who precipitated this thread. After listening to my
account, he stated the following:

(1) He believes his controller clearly made a mistake, and that there is
no obligation for a pilot to intercept the centerline precisely at any
particular point. In his view, flying directly towards the airport as I
did, and aligning with the runway at about 1/2 NM before landing, was the
proper and correct thing to do.

(2) He is reviewing the tape, and will counsel the controller on her
well-intended but poorly-delivered "correction" of a pilot when the
controller mistakenly applied her own personal misinterpretation of the
regulations.

These guys seem fairly definitive to me. Oops, sorry--this is USENET. I
know some of you still will never accept their well-informed opinions, so
let me offer some additional ideas for you to think about (so perhaps logic
will prevail where expert opinion does not).

In reference to the following definition:

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by interception of
the extended runway centerline (final approach course) without executing any
other portion of the traffic pattern.

There is nothing in this definition that suggests the pilot must intercept
the extended runway centerline at any particular point (rather it simply
must be intercepted at SOME point). Consequently, the real issue I posed is
whether one can be "on final" without being precisely on the extended
centerline. I believe you obviously can. Here's some specific themes on
the topic:

(1) Flying is inherently IMPRECISE. Specifically, nobody flies on or
intercepts an extended centerline PRECISELY. No one. Not on an ILS, not
visually, not ever. If the FAR and PTS standard was "The Applicant must
intercept the extended centerline at precisely the distance instructed by
the controller to report on final," not one of us would have our tickets.
So, what's an acceptable level of precision? I asked this question before,
but none of the naysayers seemed to respond. If I HAVE to fly to the
extended centerline at precisely 5NM, how far can I be off and not violate
the FARs? 1 foot? 10 feet? 1/4 mile? BTW, how does even one FIND this
precise position without reference to a GPS? Even if I have a GPS, do we
measure from the numbers, the touchdown zone, or the Airport Reference Point
(ARP)? Clearly, trying to apply this level of precision when flying VFR at
150 kts is ridiculous. I think a better standard might be the one posed by
the ATC Procedures Specialist above where "every approach within a 45 degree
cone of the centerline complies with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
instruction."

(2) "Final" is a general direction. I can approach any airport from any one
of 360 possible angles (in whole degrees). Thus, the odds are 1/360 that
the direction I am approaching from is precisely aligned with the runway
centerline. The question you should ask yourself is what maximum number of
degrees you would be comfortable being offset from the centerline so that
you would call it a final approach? 0.1 deg? 1 deg? 10 degs? 30 degs?
45 degs? In other words, don't think of final as ONE specific heading, but
a SET of headings all generally aligned towards the runway. A downwind and
base leg should similarly be defined in terms of a GENERAL direction--not a
specific and precise line.

(3) "Final" is a state of mind. If I MUST be on the extended centerline to
be on "final" (a statement which many of you have made), how do you account
for S-Turns? How do you justify deliberately off-setting for wake
turbulence? When a gust knocks me off the centerline, am I no longer on
final? If I slip it in without once being on the centerline (until the
flare), did I just make an approach "without flying a final?" Please.

BTW, since many of you asked: There was no traffic within the Class D
airspace known to me--certainly none in my view, and the control frequency
was not used at any time between my initial check-in, and my "5 Mile Final"
report. FWIW, I also learned that the KPRC Tower has radar.

In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this particular
situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct. I would do the
exact same thing next time, and I encourage my fellow pilots to consider
doing the same. That said, there's certainly nothing WRONG with offsetting
to intercept the extended centerline at an extended distance from the
airport in order to get more time to get setup for the landing, etc. (just a
little circuitous for my tastes--as well as potentially dangerous or
impracticable in some situations when considering terrain, etc.). Of
course, many of you will find gross fault with the above, while continuing
to nit-pick, argue about punctuation, and throw wildly uninformed
accusations about the competency of myself and the ATC folks I've cited
above. Ahhh, USENET. Recommend everyone try to get a little less keyboard
time, and a whole lot more stick time. Thanks!

Fair winds,

Jim

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:
>
> I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
Prescott,
> AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles
> final."
>
> I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
> (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
>
> At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
"5
> mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn
> right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
> centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."
>
> Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
> Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .
>
> (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
> extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
> (sounds like a base to me).
>
> or
>
> (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
> "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.
>
> I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it
> seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to
> work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
> dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
> definition is right?
>
> Regards, Jim
>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this
particular
> situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct.

You are hilarious. By your own admission, you were at a position different
from where you claim to be, and yet you still persist in thinking that a
bunch of other different statements make you right. You might want to
(re?)read the FAA's publications regarding the five hazardous attitudes.

Whatever...you're right, this is Usenet, and it takes all sorts. I just
hope I'm not around the next time you report your position. I prefer that
people claiming to be at a particular spot actually *be there*.

Pete

[Bill Denton]

You might wish to consider a different set of sources...

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: "Report" - Used to instruct pilots to
advise ATC of specified information; e,.g. "Report passing Hamilton VOR."

This is essentially what your controller said to you.

Again: from the Pilot/Controller Glossary: "Traffic Pattern": "Final
Approach" - A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to
the runway. An aircraft making a straight-in approach VFR is also considered
to be on final approach.

IIRC, you stated that you were essentially flying straight to the numbers
from your present position (if it was someone else who said that, I
apologize). By even the most liberal reading of the above definitions this
procedure would be incorrect. You should be on the runway centerline when
you cross it's intersection with base.

Before proceeding, let's pick up one more definition from the
Pilot/Controller Glossary: "Straight-In Approach VFR" - Entry into the
traffic pattern by interception of the extended runway centerline (final
approach course) without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.

Let's take a look at a sentence from one of the above definitions: "An
aircraft making a straight-in approach VFR is also considered to be on final
approach". I suppose many readings could be placed on this, but it's meaning
is quite simple: If an aircraft is making a straight-in approach VFR, the
final approach leg is extended away from the runway from the intersection
with the base leg to the aircraft's position on the extended centerline. All
it is doing is extending the length of the final approach.

So, to sum up:

Under any circumstances, when flying a straight-in approach VFR, the
aircraft should be on the extended runway centerline (obviously flying
runway heading) at the point where the runway extended centerline intersects
with the base leg, unless otherwise instructed. Obviously, the exact
location of this intersection is somewhat nebulous, but most pilots should
be able to hit it fairly closely.

I noted "unless otherwise instructed"; here is the instruction: "'Cleared
Straight-in; Report X miles Final". The troublesome part seems to be:
"Report X miles Final". But if you put the deleted words back in the meaning
is quite clear: "Report YOUR POSITION WHEN YOU ARE X miles OUT ON Final". It
then becomes obvious that, in order to comply with the controller's request,
you would need to be on the extended centerline five miles out.

That would be the absolute minimum distance at which you should intersect
the extended centerline.

But, a "common sense" reading of all of the relevant information gives the
impression that the intent of all of this is that when a pilot is cleared
"Straight-In VFR", he/she should fly as quickly as reasonable feasible to
the extended centerline, then begin flying the final approach.

Now, let's look at some of the other things you noted:

Regarding the IMPRECISE argument, don't you usually manage to put your
wheels PRECISELY on the top surface of the runway. Realistically, tolerances
are a part of flying. But, in the instance at hand, you would probably been
fine if your reported at six miles out. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to do
things a little early.

"Final is a general direction". No, final is the extended centerline of the
runway.In fact, a land surveying crew could locate a point on that line 100
miles away from the airport. So, it comes down to the abilities of the pilot
and the accuracy of his/her equipment.

"Final is a state of mind". No, final is a defined line coursed in a
specified direction. And I'm afraid your examples have no merit, primarily
because of familiarity. True, S-turns have you flying varying courses, but
your overall direction of flight is along the extended centerline. Most
everyone involved is aware of wake turbulence, of the offset method for
avoiding it, and the controller will generally know what type of aircraft is
ahead of you, which would provide a justification for your offset course.
Everyone is aware of gusts and slips. You aren't making a very good argument
on this.

I hope you are able to get this resolved...





"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, I'll give it one more go. Like many of you, I am fascinated by this
> passion for flight that occupies many of our souls. I started this thread
> to present a real-world flying example that I thought some of you would
find
> interesting. Judging by the many different perspectives presented, many
of
> you seem quite engaged by the topic. Initially, I also hoped to learn
> something, and share a possible flying error that I thought I may have
> committed, so that others could potentially learn something. And, yes, I
am
> an ATP/CFII who's very lucky to be able to fly an aerobatic,
> high-performance, complex, taildragger from Mexico to Canada--and
everywhere
> in between. I'm fairly experienced, but that doesn't mean that I don't
make
> constant mistakes while flying (like all of you).
>
> Of course, USENET has its limitations (not the least of which is having to
> occasionally come into contact with rude, over-bearing people who insist
on
> making presumptuous personal attacks in their zeal to convince people how
> much smarter they are than anyone else). I won't engage in similar
> behavior, but I think everyone knows the individuals I'm talking about.
For
> those of you who have approached this topic professionally, without
> resorting to such uncivil conduct, I thank you for your insights and
> thoughts. I'm always amazed at how the relative anonymity of the Internet
> compels people to make the most absurd and offensive comments about
complete
> strangers. During my 20 years in the Marine Corps, such communication in
> public would often end up with the offending individual picking his teeth
> off the bar-room floor.
>
> In between all the nasty comments and boorish behavior, I still think
> there's a lot of valuable learning going on, so I'll persist. I think
I've
> been able to finally resolve the issue I originally presented (at least in
> my mind).
>
> Here's what I learned thus far, and how:
>
> I called a Class C airport near where I reside and spoke to their "ATC
> Procedures Specialist" named Doug. Doug told me many interesting things:
>
> (1) The expression "Report 5 miles final" is not an instruction. It is
> not standard phraseology, and thus it is merely a request. Hence, there
was
> no legal obligation to even comply with the request (certainly there was
no
> violation of the FARs as some of you seem to believe). Moreover, Doug
> believes there is never a requirement to fly to a precise spot on the
> extended centerline during a VFR final approach (as some of you so
> passionately have stated repeatedly)--regardless of whether the controller
> makes this "Report X miles Final" REQUEST.
>
> (2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45 degree
> cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the centerline
at
> any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME point to
land
> the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile from the
numbers).
>
> I then called KPRC, and spoke to a very cordial gentlemen named Mr. Paul
> Wirdsky (sp?), who is assigned as the Tower Manager. He is the supervisor
> of the controller who precipitated this thread. After listening to my
> account, he stated the following:
>
> (1) He believes his controller clearly made a mistake, and that there
is
> no obligation for a pilot to intercept the centerline precisely at any
> particular point. In his view, flying directly towards the airport as I
> did, and aligning with the runway at about 1/2 NM before landing, was the
> proper and correct thing to do.
>
> (2) He is reviewing the tape, and will counsel the controller on her
> well-intended but poorly-delivered "correction" of a pilot when the
> controller mistakenly applied her own personal misinterpretation of the
> regulations.
>
> These guys seem fairly definitive to me. Oops, sorry--this is USENET. I
> know some of you still will never accept their well-informed opinions, so
> let me offer some additional ideas for you to think about (so perhaps
logic
> will prevail where expert opinion does not).
>
> In reference to the following definition:
>
> STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by interception
of
> the extended runway centerline (final approach course) without executing
any
> other portion of the traffic pattern.
>
> There is nothing in this definition that suggests the pilot must intercept
> the extended runway centerline at any particular point (rather it simply
> must be intercepted at SOME point). Consequently, the real issue I posed
is
> whether one can be "on final" without being precisely on the extended
> centerline. I believe you obviously can. Here's some specific themes on
> the topic:
>
> (1) Flying is inherently IMPRECISE. Specifically, nobody flies on or
> intercepts an extended centerline PRECISELY. No one. Not on an ILS, not
> visually, not ever. If the FAR and PTS standard was "The Applicant must
> intercept the extended centerline at precisely the distance instructed by
> the controller to report on final," not one of us would have our tickets.
> So, what's an acceptable level of precision? I asked this question
before,
> but none of the naysayers seemed to respond. If I HAVE to fly to the
> extended centerline at precisely 5NM, how far can I be off and not violate
> the FARs? 1 foot? 10 feet? 1/4 mile? BTW, how does even one FIND this
> precise position without reference to a GPS? Even if I have a GPS, do we
> measure from the numbers, the touchdown zone, or the Airport Reference
Point
> (ARP)? Clearly, trying to apply this level of precision when flying VFR
at
> 150 kts is ridiculous. I think a better standard might be the one posed
by
> the ATC Procedures Specialist above where "every approach within a 45
degree
> cone of the centerline complies with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> instruction."
>
> (2) "Final" is a general direction. I can approach any airport from any
one
> of 360 possible angles (in whole degrees). Thus, the odds are 1/360 that
> the direction I am approaching from is precisely aligned with the runway
> centerline. The question you should ask yourself is what maximum number
of
> degrees you would be comfortable being offset from the centerline so that
> you would call it a final approach? 0.1 deg? 1 deg? 10 degs? 30 degs?
> 45 degs? In other words, don't think of final as ONE specific heading,
but
> a SET of headings all generally aligned towards the runway. A downwind
and
> base leg should similarly be defined in terms of a GENERAL direction--not
a
> specific and precise line.
>
> (3) "Final" is a state of mind. If I MUST be on the extended centerline
to
> be on "final" (a statement which many of you have made), how do you
account
> for S-Turns? How do you justify deliberately off-setting for wake
> turbulence? When a gust knocks me off the centerline, am I no longer on
> final? If I slip it in without once being on the centerline (until the
> flare), did I just make an approach "without flying a final?" Please.
>
> BTW, since many of you asked: There was no traffic within the Class D
> airspace known to me--certainly none in my view, and the control frequency
> was not used at any time between my initial check-in, and my "5 Mile
Final"
> report. FWIW, I also learned that the KPRC Tower has radar.
>
> In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this
particular
> situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct. I would do
the
> exact same thing next time, and I encourage my fellow pilots to consider
> doing the same. That said, there's certainly nothing WRONG with
offsetting
> to intercept the extended centerline at an extended distance from the
> airport in order to get more time to get setup for the landing, etc. (just
a
> little circuitous for my tastes--as well as potentially dangerous or
> impracticable in some situations when considering terrain, etc.). Of
> course, many of you will find gross fault with the above, while continuing
> to nit-pick, argue about punctuation, and throw wildly uninformed
> accusations about the competency of myself and the ATC folks I've cited
> above. Ahhh, USENET. Recommend everyone try to get a little less
keyboard
> time, and a whole lot more stick time. Thanks!
>
> Fair winds,
>
> Jim
>
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:
> >
> > I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
> Prescott,
> > AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles
> > final."
> >
> > I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
> > (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
> >
> > At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
> "5
> > mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed,
darn
> > right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
> > centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."
> >
> > Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
> > Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .
> >
> > (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
> > extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
> > (sounds like a base to me).
> >
> > or
> >
> > (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
> > "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.
> >
> > I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise
(it
> > seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought
to
> > work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
> > dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
> > definition is right?
> >
> > Regards, Jim
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim Cummiskey wrote:
>
> I called a Class C airport near where I reside and spoke to their "ATC
> Procedures Specialist" named Doug. Doug told me many interesting things:

He's wrong.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's what I learned thus far, and how:
>
> I called a Class C airport near where I reside and spoke to their "ATC
> Procedures Specialist" named Doug. Doug told me many interesting things:
>
> (1) The expression "Report 5 miles final" is not an instruction.
>

Yes it is.


>
> It is not standard phraseology, and thus it is merely a request. Hence,
> there was no legal obligation to even comply with the request (certainly
> there was no violation of the FARs as some of you seem to believe).
> Moreover, Doug believes there is never a requirement to fly to a precise
> spot on the extended centerline during a VFR final approach (as some
> of you so passionately have stated repeatedly)--regardless of whether the
> controller makes this "Report X miles Final" REQUEST.
>

Doug is wrong.

"Report 5 miles final" IS standard phraseology. From the Pilot/Controller
Glossary:

REPORT- Used to instruct pilots to advise ATC of specified information;
e.g., "Report passing Hamilton VOR."

FAA Order 7110.65 tells controllers that legs of the traffic pattern are
valid reporting points. See para 3-10-1.g. below:


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control-- Terminal

Section 10. Arrival Procedures and Separation

3-10-1. LANDING INFORMATION

Provide current landing information, as appropriate, to arriving
aircraft. Landing information contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted
if the pilot states the appropriate ATIS code. Runway, wind, and altimeter
may be omitted if a pilot uses the phrase "have numbers." Issue landing
information by including the following:

NOTE-
Pilot use of "have numbers" does not indicate receipt of the ATIS
broadcast.

a. Specific traffic pattern information (may be omitted if the
aircraft is to circle the airport to the left).

PHRASEOLOGY-
ENTER LEFT/RIGHT BASE.

STRAIGHT-IN.

MAKE STRAIGHT-IN.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROVED.

RIGHT TRAFFIC.

MAKE RIGHT TRAFFIC.

RIGHT TRAFFIC APPROVED. CONTINUE.

b. Runway in use.

c. Surface wind.

d. Altimeter setting.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Current Settings, Para 2-7-1.

e. Any supplementary information.

f. Clearance to land.

g. Requests for additional position reports. Use prominent
geographical fixes which can be easily recognized from the air, preferably
those depicted on sectional charts. This does not preclude the use of the
legs of the traffic pattern as reporting points.

NOTE-
At some locations, VFR checkpoints are depicted on sectional
aeronautical and terminal area charts. In selecting geographical fixes,
depicted VFR checkpoints are preferred unless the pilot exhibits a
familiarity with the local area.

h. Ceiling and visibility if either is below basic VFR minima.

i. Low level wind shear or microburst advisories when available.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Low Level Wind Shear/Microburst Advisories, Para
3-1-8.

j. Issue braking action for the runway in use as received from
pilots or the airport management when Braking Action Advisories are in
effect.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Braking Action Advisories, Para 3-3-5.


>
> (2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45 degree
> cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the centerline
> at any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME
> point to land the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile
from
> the numbers).
>

FAA Order 7110.65 prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology
for use by persons providing air traffic control services in the US. Doug
and others at his airport are not in a position to redefine those procedures
and phraseology as they see fit. "Report", "Final", and "Straight in
Approach" are all defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, which is an
addendum to FAA Order 7110.65.


>
> I then called KPRC, and spoke to a very cordial gentlemen named Mr. Paul
> Wirdsky (sp?), who is assigned as the Tower Manager. He is the supervisor
> of the controller who precipitated this thread. After listening to my
> account, he stated the following:
>
> (1) He believes his controller clearly made a mistake, and that there
> is no obligation for a pilot to intercept the centerline precisely at any
> particular point. In his view, flying directly towards the airport as I
> did, and aligning with the runway at about 1/2 NM before landing, was the
> proper and correct thing to do.
>


There is an obligation for a pilot to adhere to valid ATC instructions,
you'll find it in FAR 91.123(b). While the instruction to report a five
mile final may or may not have been necessary in this case, it was without
question a valid instruction and you were bound by regulation to comply with
it.


>
> (2) He is reviewing the tape, and will counsel the controller on her
> well-intended but poorly-delivered "correction" of a pilot when the
> controller mistakenly applied her own personal misinterpretation of the
> regulations.
>

What regulation do you believe she misinterpreted?

The controller erred when she said "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L". You
were a VFR arrival to an airport in Class D airspace, the only clearance
needed is a clearance to land.


>
> These guys seem fairly definitive to me. Oops, sorry--this is USENET. I
> know some of you still will never accept their well-informed opinions, so
> let me offer some additional ideas for you to think about (so perhaps
> logic will prevail where expert opinion does not).
>

FAA Order 7110.65 is definitive. Those guys are taking positions contrary
to that order, that makes them wrong.


>
> In reference to the following definition:
>
> STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by
> interception of the extended runway centerline (final approach course)
> without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.
>
> There is nothing in this definition that suggests the pilot must intercept
> the extended runway centerline at any particular point (rather it simply
> must be intercepted at SOME point).
>

And the point specified by the controller was a five mile final, therefore
you were required to intercept the extended centerline at a point not closer
than five miles.


>
> Consequently, the real issue I posed is whether one can be "on final"
> without being precisely on the extended centerline. I believe you
> obviously can. Here's some specific themes on the topic:
>
> (1) Flying is inherently IMPRECISE. Specifically, nobody flies on or
> intercepts an extended centerline PRECISELY. No one. Not on an ILS,
> not visually, not ever.
>

Do you consider yourself aligned with the runway when your nose is cocked 30
degrees from the centerline?


>
> If the FAR and PTS standard was "The Applicant must
> intercept the extended centerline at precisely the distance instructed by
> the controller to report on final," not one of us would have our tickets.
> So, what's an acceptable level of precision? I asked this question
before,
> but none of the naysayers seemed to respond. If I HAVE to fly to the
> extended centerline at precisely 5NM, how far can I be off and not violate
> the FARs? 1 foot? 10 feet? 1/4 mile? BTW, how does even one FIND
> this precise position without reference to a GPS? Even if I have a GPS,
do > we measure from the numbers, the touchdown zone, or the Airport
> Reference Point (ARP)? Clearly, trying to apply this level of precision
> when flying VFR at 150 kts is ridiculous.
>

You wrote, "At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline),
I report '5 mile final'." How did you measure your distance then?
Heretofore there's been no suggestion that your distance was incorrect, it's
just that you were not aligned with the runway.


>
> I think a better standard might be the one posed by the ATC
> Procedures Specialist above where "every approach within a 45
> degree cone of the centerline complies with the "Make Straight In,
> Runway X" instruction."
>

He was wrong.


>
> (2) "Final" is a general direction.
>

"Final" for any given runway is specific.


>
> FWIW, I also learned that the KPRC Tower has radar.
>

But they don't have radar on the field. They have a feed from an
Albuquerque Center radar site, probably Phoenix, which is fifty miles away.
You wouldn't necessarily have been depicted by the radar.


>
> In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this
> particular situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct.
>

Well, if there was no other traffic it was likely safe, but without question
it was illegal, unjustifiable, and 100% wrong.


>
> I would do the exact same thing next time, and I encourage my fellow
> pilots to consider doing the same.
>

Which means you haven't learned a thing from this discussion. So what then
was your purpose in starting this thread?

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
>
> ...I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this particular
> situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct.

I never doubted for a moment that this would be your conclusion, Doc.

[Flydive]

Jim Cummiskey wrote:

>
> (2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45 degree
> cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the centerline at
> any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME point to land
> the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile from the numbers).


Well if you were approaching with a 30 degrees angle you were in a 60
degrees cone, outside Doug's definition.

GB

[Jim Cummiskey]

> you were at a position different from where you claim to be

Nope. I was at a position EXACTLY where I claimed to be. I was 5 miles
from the airport, and I WAS on final. Thus "5 Miles Final."

As I have attempted to point out numerous times, the real issue is: "Must
you be on the extended centerline to be on final?" You believe the answer
is "Yes." I belive that the answer is "No."

Aviation is funny like that. Do you slip with flaps? Do you climb initally
at Vx or Vy on takeoff? Do you power for altitude and pitch for airspeed
(or vice versa)? We can agree to disagree, but I think you are just as
wrong as you appear to believe I am.

Pete, please answer the following question: "Have you ever approached the
runway on the final leg of your pattern NOT on the extended centerline?"
Congratulations, Pete! You just flew what somebody called an "angled final"
in an earlier email.

I like the expression "angled final" in some ways. It accurately captures
my contention that ALL FINALS ARE ANGLED. The trivial case is, of course,
the final that just happens to be on the extended centerline (this would be
the 0 deg angle). Thus, since all finals are angled, "angled" is redundant.

Regards, Jim

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this
> particular
> > situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct.
>
> You are hilarious. By your own admission, you were at a position
different
> from where you claim to be, and yet you still persist in thinking that a
> bunch of other different statements make you right. You might want to
> (re?)read the FAA's publications regarding the five hazardous attitudes.
>
> Whatever...you're right, this is Usenet, and it takes all sorts. I just
> hope I'm not around the next time you report your position. I prefer that
> people claiming to be at a particular spot actually *be there*.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Jim Cummiskey]

Thanks for your comments, Bill. You are able to express your point of view
clearly without resorting to the uncivil sentiments used by many others on
this forum.

In respect to my sources, I believe the opinions of a Class C "ATC
Procedures Specialist" at one of the business airports in Southern
California, in conjunction with the Tower Manager at the airport where the
supposed infraction took place trump any other source offered on this forum
thus far. Indeed, the regulations (FAR and Order 7110.65) are often less
than crystal-clear on sticky issues such as these (that's why the FAA
publishes a FAQ to explain the FAR; if only we had a FAQ to explain the FAQ
<g>). In short, both of these credentialed and informed gentlemen believe
that you do NOT have to be on the extended centerline to be on "final."
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I share their view.

As I've stated multiple times, I was approximately on the extended runway
centerline when a "textbook" base would turn into a final (~1/2 mile from
the numbers). Thus, I met the definition of the "Final Approach" you cite
below.

I understand your position on everything you've stated, however, perhaps
another example might illustrate my "common sense" point (as you put it).
At KSNA, the parallel runway 19L has a special approach procedure called out
in the AFD. Specifically, it requires all pilots to offset 15 degrees when
approaching the runway. Hence, properly flown, the pilot will never
intersect the extended centerline until in the flare. I've landed on this
runway literally thousands of times--have I never been on final? If not a
final, what would YOU call it?

Regards, Jim


"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> You might wish to consider a different set of sources...
>
> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: "Report" - Used to instruct pilots to
> advise ATC of specified information; e,.g. "Report passing Hamilton VOR."
>
> This is essentially what your controller said to you.
>
> Again: from the Pilot/Controller Glossary: "Traffic Pattern": "Final
> Approach" - A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
> runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg
to
> the runway. An aircraft making a straight-in approach VFR is also
considered
> to be on final approach.
>
> IIRC, you stated that you were essentially flying straight to the numbers
> from your present position (if it was someone else who said that, I
> apologize). By even the most liberal reading of the above definitions this
> procedure would be incorrect. You should be on the runway centerline when
> you cross it's intersection with base.
>
> Before proceeding, let's pick up one more definition from the
> Pilot/Controller Glossary: "Straight-In Approach VFR" - Entry into the
> traffic pattern by interception of the extended runway centerline (final
> approach course) without executing any other portion of the traffic
pattern.
>
> Let's take a look at a sentence from one of the above definitions: "An
> aircraft making a straight-in approach VFR is also considered to be on
final
> approach". I suppose many readings could be placed on this, but it's
meaning
> is quite simple: If an aircraft is making a straight-in approach VFR, the
> final approach leg is extended away from the runway from the intersection
> with the base leg to the aircraft's position on the extended centerline.
All
> it is doing is extending the length of the final approach.
>
> So, to sum up:
>
> Under any circumstances, when flying a straight-in approach VFR, the
> aircraft should be on the extended runway centerline (obviously flying
> runway heading) at the point where the runway extended centerline
intersects
> with the base leg, unless otherwise instructed. Obviously, the exact
> location of this intersection is somewhat nebulous, but most pilots should
> be able to hit it fairly closely.
>
> I noted "unless otherwise instructed"; here is the instruction: "'Cleared
> Straight-in; Report X miles Final". The troublesome part seems to be:
> "Report X miles Final". But if you put the deleted words back in the
meaning
> is quite clear: "Report YOUR POSITION WHEN YOU ARE X miles OUT ON Final".
It
> then becomes obvious that, in order to comply with the controller's
request,
> you would need to be on the extended centerline five miles out.
>
> That would be the absolute minimum distance at which you should intersect
> the extended centerline.
>
> But, a "common sense" reading of all of the relevant information gives the
> impression that the intent of all of this is that when a pilot is cleared
> "Straight-In VFR", he/she should fly as quickly as reasonable feasible to
> the extended centerline, then begin flying the final approach.
>
> Now, let's look at some of the other things you noted:
>
> Regarding the IMPRECISE argument, don't you usually manage to put your
> wheels PRECISELY on the top surface of the runway. Realistically,
tolerances
> are a part of flying. But, in the instance at hand, you would probably
been
> fine if your reported at six miles out. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to do
> things a little early.
>
> "Final is a general direction". No, final is the extended centerline of
the
> runway.In fact, a land surveying crew could locate a point on that line
100
> miles away from the airport. So, it comes down to the abilities of the
pilot
> and the accuracy of his/her equipment.
>
> "Final is a state of mind". No, final is a defined line coursed in a
> specified direction. And I'm afraid your examples have no merit, primarily
> because of familiarity. True, S-turns have you flying varying courses, but
> your overall direction of flight is along the extended centerline. Most
> everyone involved is aware of wake turbulence, of the offset method for
> avoiding it, and the controller will generally know what type of aircraft
is
> ahead of you, which would provide a justification for your offset course.
> Everyone is aware of gusts and slips. You aren't making a very good
argument
> on this.
>
> I hope you are able to get this resolved...
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Okay, I'll give it one more go. Like many of you, I am fascinated by
this
> > passion for flight that occupies many of our souls. I started this
thread
> > to present a real-world flying example that I thought some of you would
> find
> > interesting. Judging by the many different perspectives presented, many
> of
> > you seem quite engaged by the topic. Initially, I also hoped to learn
> > something, and share a possible flying error that I thought I may have
> > committed, so that others could potentially learn something. And, yes,
I
> am
> > an ATP/CFII who's very lucky to be able to fly an aerobatic,
> > high-performance, complex, taildragger from Mexico to Canada--and
> everywhere
> > in between. I'm fairly experienced, but that doesn't mean that I don't
> make
> > constant mistakes while flying (like all of you).
> >
> > Of course, USENET has its limitations (not the least of which is having
to
> > occasionally come into contact with rude, over-bearing people who insist
> on
> > making presumptuous personal attacks in their zeal to convince people
how
> > much smarter they are than anyone else). I won't engage in similar
> > behavior, but I think everyone knows the individuals I'm talking about.
> For
> > those of you who have approached this topic professionally, without
> > resorting to such uncivil conduct, I thank you for your insights and
> > thoughts. I'm always amazed at how the relative anonymity of the
Internet
> > compels people to make the most absurd and offensive comments about
> complete
> > strangers. During my 20 years in the Marine Corps, such communication
in
> > public would often end up with the offending individual picking his
teeth
> > off the bar-room floor.
> >
> > In between all the nasty comments and boorish behavior, I still think
> > there's a lot of valuable learning going on, so I'll persist. I think
> I've
> > been able to finally resolve the issue I originally presented (at least
in
> > my mind).
> >
> > Here's what I learned thus far, and how:
> >
> > I called a Class C airport near where I reside and spoke to their "ATC
> > Procedures Specialist" named Doug. Doug told me many interesting
things:
> >
> > (1) The expression "Report 5 miles final" is not an instruction. It
is
> > not standard phraseology, and thus it is merely a request. Hence, there
> was
> > no legal obligation to even comply with the request (certainly there was
> no
> > violation of the FARs as some of you seem to believe). Moreover, Doug
> > believes there is never a requirement to fly to a precise spot on the
> > extended centerline during a VFR final approach (as some of you so
> > passionately have stated repeatedly)--regardless of whether the
controller
> > makes this "Report X miles Final" REQUEST.
> >
> > (2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45
degree
> > cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> > instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the
centerline
> at
> > any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME point to
> land
> > the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile from the
> numbers).
> >
> > I then called KPRC, and spoke to a very cordial gentlemen named Mr. Paul
> > Wirdsky (sp?), who is assigned as the Tower Manager. He is the
supervisor
> > of the controller who precipitated this thread. After listening to my
> > account, he stated the following:
> >
> > (1) He believes his controller clearly made a mistake, and that there
> is
> > no obligation for a pilot to intercept the centerline precisely at any
> > particular point. In his view, flying directly towards the airport as I
> > did, and aligning with the runway at about 1/2 NM before landing, was
the
> > proper and correct thing to do.
> >
> > (2) He is reviewing the tape, and will counsel the controller on her
> > well-intended but poorly-delivered "correction" of a pilot when the
> > controller mistakenly applied her own personal misinterpretation of the
> > regulations.
> >
> > These guys seem fairly definitive to me. Oops, sorry--this is USENET.
I
> > know some of you still will never accept their well-informed opinions,
so
> > let me offer some additional ideas for you to think about (so perhaps
> logic
> > will prevail where expert opinion does not).
> >
> > In reference to the following definition:
> >
> > STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by interception
> of
> > the extended runway centerline (final approach course) without executing
> any
> > other portion of the traffic pattern.
> >
> > There is nothing in this definition that suggests the pilot must
intercept
> > the extended runway centerline at any particular point (rather it simply
> > must be intercepted at SOME point). Consequently, the real issue I
posed
> is
> > whether one can be "on final" without being precisely on the extended
> > centerline. I believe you obviously can. Here's some specific themes
on
> > the topic:
> >
> > (1) Flying is inherently IMPRECISE. Specifically, nobody flies on or
> > intercepts an extended centerline PRECISELY. No one. Not on an ILS,
not
> > visually, not ever. If the FAR and PTS standard was "The Applicant must
> > intercept the extended centerline at precisely the distance instructed
by
> > the controller to report on final," not one of us would have our
tickets.
> > So, what's an acceptable level of precision? I asked this question
> before,
> > but none of the naysayers seemed to respond. If I HAVE to fly to the
> > extended centerline at precisely 5NM, how far can I be off and not
violate
> > the FARs? 1 foot? 10 feet? 1/4 mile? BTW, how does even one FIND this
> > precise position without reference to a GPS? Even if I have a GPS, do
we
> > measure from the numbers, the touchdown zone, or the Airport Reference
> Point
> > (ARP)? Clearly, trying to apply this level of precision when flying VFR
> at
> > 150 kts is ridiculous. I think a better standard might be the one posed
> by
> > the ATC Procedures Specialist above where "every approach within a 45
> degree
> > cone of the centerline complies with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> > instruction."
> >
> > (2) "Final" is a general direction. I can approach any airport from any
> one
> > of 360 possible angles (in whole degrees). Thus, the odds are 1/360
that
> > the direction I am approaching from is precisely aligned with the runway
> > centerline. The question you should ask yourself is what maximum number
> of
> > degrees you would be comfortable being offset from the centerline so
that
> > you would call it a final approach? 0.1 deg? 1 deg? 10 degs? 30
degs?
> > 45 degs? In other words, don't think of final as ONE specific heading,
> but
> > a SET of headings all generally aligned towards the runway. A downwind
> and
> > base leg should similarly be defined in terms of a GENERAL
direction--not
> a
> > specific and precise line.
> >
> > (3) "Final" is a state of mind. If I MUST be on the extended centerline
> to
> > be on "final" (a statement which many of you have made), how do you
> account
> > for S-Turns? How do you justify deliberately off-setting for wake
> > turbulence? When a gust knocks me off the centerline, am I no longer on
> > final? If I slip it in without once being on the centerline (until the
> > flare), did I just make an approach "without flying a final?" Please.
> >
> > BTW, since many of you asked: There was no traffic within the Class D
> > airspace known to me--certainly none in my view, and the control
frequency
> > was not used at any time between my initial check-in, and my "5 Mile
> Final"
> > report. FWIW, I also learned that the KPRC Tower has radar.
> >
> > In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this
> particular
> > situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct. I would do
> the
> > exact same thing next time, and I encourage my fellow pilots to consider
> > doing the same. That said, there's certainly nothing WRONG with
> offsetting
> > to intercept the extended centerline at an extended distance from the
> > airport in order to get more time to get setup for the landing, etc.
(just
> a
> > little circuitous for my tastes--as well as potentially dangerous or
> > impracticable in some situations when considering terrain, etc.). Of
> > course, many of you will find gross fault with the above, while
continuing
> > to nit-pick, argue about punctuation, and throw wildly uninformed
> > accusations about the competency of myself and the ATC folks I've cited
> > above. Ahhh, USENET. Recommend everyone try to get a little less
> keyboard
> > time, and a whole lot more stick time. Thanks!
> >
> > Fair winds,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:
> > >
> > > I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
> > Prescott,
> > > AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5
miles
> > > final."
> > >
> > > I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
> > > (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).
> > >
> > > At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I
report
> > "5
> > > mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed,
> darn
> > > right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
> > > centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."
> > >
> > > Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
> > > Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .
> > >
> > > (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on
the
> > > extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
> > > (sounds like a base to me).
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers
(thus
> > > "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.
> > >
> > > I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise
> (it
> > > seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought
> to
> > > work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
> > > dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently.
Which
> > > definition is right?
> > >
> > > Regards, Jim
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jim Cummiskey]

> He's wrong.

Thank you for that insightful comment, G.R. BTW, would you be willing to
share with us your credentials in making your definitive pronouncement?
These guys are ATC professionals (who picked up the phone when I called the
respective towers--unlike the dubious source of much of the "expert"
commentary I see on this forum).

Frankly, I would be more inclined to believe them in contrast to some of the
wannabes who believe access to a digital copy of the FARs and Order 7110.65
is all it takes to interpret the gray areas of aviation.

Regards, Jim

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Cummiskey wrote:
> >
> > I called a Class C airport near where I reside and spoke to their "ATC
> > Procedures Specialist" named Doug. Doug told me many interesting
things:
>
> He's wrong.
>
> George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.

[Jim Cummiskey]

Thanks, Steve--you've made some good points. Interestingly, Doug quoted the
exact paragraph, 3-10-1.g, to illustrate his point that it WASN'T standard
phraseology. I think you have presented yourself as a working Tower ATC.
If you don't mind, what class of Tower do you work at? Are you a
"Procedures Specialist?" What's your contact information? Not that I'm
questioning you, but unfortunately, ATC doesn't have the same public-access
database we can use to validate someone's expertise. I also know ATC has
various levels of assignment, competency and experience (as obviously do
pilots). Could you please describe yours for the group so we can assess
your relative credibility to Doug and Paul?

As I said in a previous post, I am not a member of ATC, and I certainly
cannot speak definitively as to the rationale behind a particular
controller's position, but I can cite what that controller told me. As you
know, there is a lot of incertainty in regulations. For example, I've
learned long ago that one should never call two FSDOs if you want to get a
single answer to any complex question <g>. Indeed, as an illustration
another controller on this forum, "Newps," appears to agree 100% with the
position of Doug, Paul, and myself (put simply, "One need not be on the
extended centerline to be "on final."). Newps, care to weigh in here and
address Steve's issues?

Steve, I would recommend you contact Doug and Paul directly (I will supply
their contact info directly to you if desired). Perhaps you three could
work it out and share what you discover with the pilots on this forum. It
is distressing to me (although not unexpected) that something so fundamental
as the question "Must a final approach be on the extended centerline to be
considered a final?," is generating such confusion--especially in the ATC
community. Let's work to get this resolved.

Now to answer some of your specific questions:

> What regulation do you believe she misinterpreted?

Recommend you call Paul and ask him--he said it, not me.

> You wrote, "At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the
centerline), I report '5 mile final'." How did you measure your distance
then?

GPS in this case. The 5 miles I reported was accurate. The issue is
whether I was "on final."

> Do you consider yourself aligned with the runway when your nose is cocked
30 degrees from the centerline?

Mabye. There is something called crab <g>.

> Which means you haven't learned a thing from this discussion. So what
then was your purpose in starting this thread?

Well, please re-read my message again for my purpose. And, if you're
implying that I can learn something ONLY if I agree with YOU, you're
mistaken. Dare I say you might be able to learn something too? Gosh, how
impudent of me.

Regards, Jim


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Here's what I learned thus far, and how:
> >
> > I called a Class C airport near where I reside and spoke to their "ATC
> > Procedures Specialist" named Doug. Doug told me many interesting
things:
> >
> > (1) The expression "Report 5 miles final" is not an instruction.
> >
>
> Yes it is.
>
>
> >
> > It is not standard phraseology, and thus it is merely a request. Hence,
> > there was no legal obligation to even comply with the request (certainly
> > there was no violation of the FARs as some of you seem to believe).
> > Moreover, Doug believes there is never a requirement to fly to a precise
> > spot on the extended centerline during a VFR final approach (as some
> > of you so passionately have stated repeatedly)--regardless of whether
the
> > controller makes this "Report X miles Final" REQUEST.
> >
>
> Doug is wrong.
>
> "Report 5 miles final" IS standard phraseology. From the Pilot/Controller
> Glossary:
>
> REPORT- Used to instruct pilots to advise ATC of specified information;
> e.g., "Report passing Hamilton VOR."
>
> FAA Order 7110.65 tells controllers that legs of the traffic pattern are
> valid reporting points. See para 3-10-1.g. below:
>
>
> FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control
>
> Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control-- Terminal
>
> Section 10. Arrival Procedures and Separation
>
> 3-10-1. LANDING INFORMATION
>
> Provide current landing information, as appropriate, to arriving
> aircraft. Landing information contained in the ATIS broadcast may be
omitted
> if the pilot states the appropriate ATIS code. Runway, wind, and altimeter
> may be omitted if a pilot uses the phrase "have numbers." Issue landing
> information by including the following:
>
> NOTE-
> Pilot use of "have numbers" does not indicate receipt of the ATIS
> broadcast.
>
> a. Specific traffic pattern information (may be omitted if the
> aircraft is to circle the airport to the left).
>
> PHRASEOLOGY-
> ENTER LEFT/RIGHT BASE.
>
> STRAIGHT-IN.
>
> MAKE STRAIGHT-IN.
>
> STRAIGHT-IN APPROVED.
>
> RIGHT TRAFFIC.
>
> MAKE RIGHT TRAFFIC.
>
> RIGHT TRAFFIC APPROVED. CONTINUE.
>
> b. Runway in use.
>
> c. Surface wind.
>
> d. Altimeter setting.
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7110.65, Current Settings, Para 2-7-1.
>
> e. Any supplementary information.
>
> f. Clearance to land.
>
> g. Requests for additional position reports. Use prominent
> geographical fixes which can be easily recognized from the air, preferably
> those depicted on sectional charts. This does not preclude the use of the
> legs of the traffic pattern as reporting points.
>
> NOTE-
> At some locations, VFR checkpoints are depicted on sectional
> aeronautical and terminal area charts. In selecting geographical fixes,
> depicted VFR checkpoints are preferred unless the pilot exhibits a
> familiarity with the local area.
>
> h. Ceiling and visibility if either is below basic VFR minima.
>
> i. Low level wind shear or microburst advisories when available.
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7110.65, Low Level Wind Shear/Microburst Advisories, Para
> 3-1-8.
>
> j. Issue braking action for the runway in use as received from
> pilots or the airport management when Braking Action Advisories are in
> effect.
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7110.65, Braking Action Advisories, Para 3-3-5.
>
>
> >
> > (2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45
degree
> > cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> > instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the
centerline
> > at any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME
> > point to land the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile
> from
> > the numbers).
> >
>
> FAA Order 7110.65 prescribes air traffic control procedures and
phraseology
> for use by persons providing air traffic control services in the US. Doug
> and others at his airport are not in a position to redefine those
procedures
> and phraseology as they see fit. "Report", "Final", and "Straight in
> Approach" are all defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, which is an
> addendum to FAA Order 7110.65.
>
>
> >
> > I then called KPRC, and spoke to a very cordial gentlemen named Mr. Paul
> > Wirdsky (sp?), who is assigned as the Tower Manager. He is the
supervisor
> > of the controller who precipitated this thread. After listening to my
> > account, he stated the following:
> >
> > (1) He believes his controller clearly made a mistake, and that there
> > is no obligation for a pilot to intercept the centerline precisely at
any
> > particular point. In his view, flying directly towards the airport as I
> > did, and aligning with the runway at about 1/2 NM before landing, was
the
> > proper and correct thing to do.
> >
>
>
> There is an obligation for a pilot to adhere to valid ATC instructions,
> you'll find it in FAR 91.123(b). While the instruction to report a five
> mile final may or may not have been necessary in this case, it was without
> question a valid instruction and you were bound by regulation to comply
with
> it.
>
>
> >
> > (2) He is reviewing the tape, and will counsel the controller on her
> > well-intended but poorly-delivered "correction" of a pilot when the
> > controller mistakenly applied her own personal misinterpretation of the
> > regulations.
> >
>
> What regulation do you believe she misinterpreted?
>
> The controller erred when she said "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L". You
> were a VFR arrival to an airport in Class D airspace, the only clearance
> needed is a clearance to land.
>
>
> >
> > These guys seem fairly definitive to me. Oops, sorry--this is USENET.
I
> > know some of you still will never accept their well-informed opinions,
so
> > let me offer some additional ideas for you to think about (so perhaps
> > logic will prevail where expert opinion does not).
> >
>
> FAA Order 7110.65 is definitive. Those guys are taking positions contrary
> to that order, that makes them wrong.
>
>
> >
> > In reference to the following definition:
> >
> > STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by
> > interception of the extended runway centerline (final approach course)
> > without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.
> >
> > There is nothing in this definition that suggests the pilot must
intercept
> > the extended runway centerline at any particular point (rather it simply
> > must be intercepted at SOME point).
> >
>
> And the point specified by the controller was a five mile final, therefore
> you were required to intercept the extended centerline at a point not
closer
> than five miles.
>
>
> >
> > Consequently, the real issue I posed is whether one can be "on final"
> > without being precisely on the extended centerline. I believe you
> > obviously can. Here's some specific themes on the topic:
> >
> > (1) Flying is inherently IMPRECISE. Specifically, nobody flies on or
> > intercepts an extended centerline PRECISELY. No one. Not on an ILS,
> > not visually, not ever.
> >
>
> Do you consider yourself aligned with the runway when your nose is cocked
30
> degrees from the centerline?
>
>
> >
> > If the FAR and PTS standard was "The Applicant must
> > intercept the extended centerline at precisely the distance instructed
by
> > the controller to report on final," not one of us would have our
tickets.
> > So, what's an acceptable level of precision? I asked this question
> before,
> > but none of the naysayers seemed to respond. If I HAVE to fly to the
> > extended centerline at precisely 5NM, how far can I be off and not
violate
> > the FARs? 1 foot? 10 feet? 1/4 mile? BTW, how does even one FIND
> > this precise position without reference to a GPS? Even if I have a GPS,
> do > we measure from the numbers, the touchdown zone, or the Airport
> > Reference Point (ARP)? Clearly, trying to apply this level of precision
> > when flying VFR at 150 kts is ridiculous.
> >
>
> You wrote, "At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the
centerline),
> I report '5 mile final'." How did you measure your distance then?
> Heretofore there's been no suggestion that your distance was incorrect,
it's
> just that you were not aligned with the runway.
>
>
> >
> > I think a better standard might be the one posed by the ATC
> > Procedures Specialist above where "every approach within a 45
> > degree cone of the centerline complies with the "Make Straight In,
> > Runway X" instruction."
> >
>
> He was wrong.
>
>
> >
> > (2) "Final" is a general direction.
> >
>
> "Final" for any given runway is specific.
>
>
> >
> > FWIW, I also learned that the KPRC Tower has radar.
> >
>
> But they don't have radar on the field. They have a feed from an
> Albuquerque Center radar site, probably Phoenix, which is fifty miles
away.
> You wouldn't necessarily have been depicted by the radar.
>
>
> >
> > In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this
> > particular situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct.
> >
>
> Well, if there was no other traffic it was likely safe, but without
question
> it was illegal, unjustifiable, and 100% wrong.
>
>
> >
> > I would do the exact same thing next time, and I encourage my fellow
> > pilots to consider doing the same.
> >
>
> Which means you haven't learned a thing from this discussion. So what
then
> was your purpose in starting this thread?
>
>

[Morgans]

"Bill Denton" > wrote

>
> I hope you are able to get this resolved...

Jim will never get it resolved, but one way; his way. He is right, and if
you don't believe that, just ask him.

I'm glad that he feels comfortable with the criteria for flight he has
chosen. I only hope that I am never in the same portion of big sky that he
is in.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/9/2004

[Jim Cummiskey]

Thank you, John. You and G.R. Patterson are clearly contributing at the
same level. Again, I apologize for even implying that there might be
something about aviation you don't know.

Please read my last long post again and ask yourself, "Gee, I wonder what
group of USENET users Jim thinks I'm in?"

Since you felt once again to express yourself in such negative way, please
allow me to respond to your earlier emails:

> Jim, you asked the question, and received many answers from people with
far
> broader experience than your own, the preponderance of which disagreed
with
> your opinion. These you refuse to accept. So be it.

Oh really? Actually, I think the experience metric might be in my favor for
the vast majority of the folk on this forum, Doc. What are you flying, BTW?
You've just aptly demonstrated the old line about the dangers of ASSUME'ing.
And, yes--the preponderance of people did seem to disagree with my opinion
on this controversial issue. Did it bother you at all that a few people
DIDN'T (including at least three another ATC controllers)? Did it concern
you that the question is even coming up? Instead of INSISTING that your
perspective is the only possible conclusion, have you bothered to really
read everyone's posts, and reexamine your preconceived notions about what's
right and wrong? Your rigidness and lack of mobility in your thinking is
distressing for someone who is positioning themselves as an Oracle of
Aviation. I least I had the stones to announce: "There is something about
aviation I may not know." I'm not sure people like you can even understand
that (instead, you ASSUME--there's that word again--that the only reason I
would make my initial post is to agitate all you Vanguards of Aviation
Proficiency) and then have the TEMERITY to not agree with your conclusions
while prostrate with thankfulness. Get a grip.

> Try thinking of yourself as one of many many pilots who make up the entire
> aviation system, instead of one pilot with an inviolable right to fly
> wherever, whenever. You also ought to rethink this idea you seem to have
> that you can interpret the regs as you see fit. Things will be smoother.

The regs ARE confusing, imprecise, and often contradictory. They need
interpretation badly. What is it about this you don't understand? What YOU
seem to be missing is that there are very few right and wrong answers in
aviation--especially in the regulatory domain. It's a very fluid,
convoluted, and chaotic environment. We need to get all the IQ points in
the game to try to figure out answers to the myriad of questions still out
there--for both experienced and novice pilots and controllers alike.
Questions like "Do you have to be on the extended centerline to be
considered 'on final'?" Things will be SMOOTHER if you admit and understand
this. Join the discussion with an open mind; share your ideas; but please
drop the attitude of "My way or the highway." It doesn't play in Peoria.

> You strike me as a very smart amateur who just loves to second guess and
> think to death little perceived cracks in the regulatory structure -- the
> kind of person who gave rise years ago to all the old jokes about Doctors
> and Bonanzas.

They aren't PERCEIVED cracks--they ARE cracks (with more than our fair share
of CRACKPOTs who insist on blindly enforcing a confusing disarray of
regulations without considering common sense and the requirements of
real-world flying). The comically pseudo-precise nature of the FARs is
evident to all (e.g., you can't fly unless you get "all available
information."). It is human nature that the strict engineering-types among
us LOVE the FARs (you know the kind--the guys with no people skills who
believe that everything in life has a precise set of rules, and that these
rules MUST be followed unerring without question or ALL IS LOST!). WRONG!
Life is analog, not digital, John. There is no right and wrong. All rules
and laws merely offer a set of guidelines to be used as a general model for
our behavior. Human beings make laws. Human beings are not infallible.

Proficient pilots understand and comply with the FARs, because generally
they make sense--but NEVER at the expense of interpreting them in a COMMON
SENSE way. For example, "Make Straight-in Runway X" translates to me as
"Fly direct to the airport, align yourself with the runway at a safe
distance, and land." "Report X Miles Final" translates to "Tell me when
you're five miles away from landing on your final leg to the airport." The
conjoined meaning of these two sentences DOES NOT translate to "AND THOU
SHALL GET ON THE EXTENDED CENTERLINE AT X MILES." I understand there are
many on this forum who feel otherwise (but their OPINION is not shared by an
experienced ATC Procedures Specialist, as well as the Tower Manager of the
airport in question). If it's good enough for these guys, why isn't it good
enough for you, John? Does it make you NERVOUS that one of your most
preciously-held views of the world is being challenged? That your strict
(some might say "anal-retentive") interpretation of the FARs might be OPEN
TO QUESTION? Gosh, that must be a scary feeling for you.

Later when Larry Dighera (BTW, thanks, Larry--nice hearing from you again)
gave you some more insight into my background to refute your judgemental and
offensive commentary above, you were gracious enough to apologize.

> Your descriptive above exactly applies to the type of accomplished
> professionals in other fields (such as physicians, or programmers) who may
> well think themselves smarter than the aviation system. However, your
fine
> personal commendation would outweigh what may be my misinterpretation of
the
> simple printed word. If I have done so I apologize to Mr. Cumminsky.

John, I accept your apology (albeit with your veiled dig at your perceptions
of my professional community, I understood the shallowness of your
contrition). But, then you went and spoiled this "apology" with yet another
one of your non-contributory posts. Moreover, your comment about those
that "think themselves smarter than the aviation system" disturbs me. John,
I AM the aviation system (certainly, a small part of it). The "Aviation
System" is NOT merely the confusing tomes of regulations that the FAA and
other organizations produce for our mutual bewilderment. Rather, it is the
sum total of ALL the people involved--how they feel about things, and they
way they approach their respecitive responsibilities in the system. ACTIVE
controllers and pilots are the main players in the dance (BTW, how many
hours have you logged in the last year, Doc)? I encourage you to read the
thread a few more times, and reevaluate your position. I welcome your input
on this sticky issue and am willing to respect you as a fellow professional,
but only if you are willing to accord me the same priviledge.

Now, I'm going to take my own advice ("less keyboard time, more stick
time"), change my airplane's oil and go flying in beautiful SoCal.

Fair winds,

Regards, Jim

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this particular
> > situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct.
>
> I never doubted for a moment that this would be your conclusion, Doc.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[AJW]

>
>> you were at a position different from where you claim to be
>
>Nope. I was at a position EXACTLY where I claimed to be. I was 5 miles
>from the airport, and I WAS on final. Thus "5 Miles Final."
>
>As I have attempted to point out numerous times, the real issue is: "Must
>you be on the extended centerline to be on final?" You believe the answer
>is "Yes." I belive that the answer is "No."
>
I suspect this could go on for a long time, but legalities aside, does anyone
disagree with the notion that "5 mile final" position report would by most of
us suggest that somewhere mainly along the extended centerline of the runway is
where we'd probably see traffic?

I respectfully submit that as pilots we get in the habit of making position
reports -- at controlled airports or not -- so as to help other airplanes FIND
THE DAMNED TRAFFIC!!!

Thank you for your consideration.

[Jim Cummiskey]

GB, the 45 degree cone Doug was referring to encompassed both sides of the
extended centerline.

Imagine a large X and Y axis superimposed on any airport (with the X-axis
aligned with the runway centerline). There are thus four quadrants. If at
any time I am moving in respect to the airport in one of those quadrants, I
will either be in a "downwind" general direction, a "base" direction, a
"final/upwind" direction, and a "crosswind" direction. The "Final/Upwind"
direction represents the domain of what consitutes a "final" in my way of
thinking (which appears to be shared by at least three ATC controllers).

If you approach an airport at 30 degrees off the extended centerline
(something that I'm sure most of you have done thousands of times--as I
have), what leg are you flying?

Regards, Jim

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Cummiskey wrote:
>
> >
> > (2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45
degree
> > cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> > instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the
centerline at
> > any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME point to
land
> > the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile from the
numbers).
>
>
> Well if you were approaching with a 30 degrees angle you were in a 60
> degrees cone, outside Doug's definition.
>
> GB

[Jim Cummiskey]

Gee, thanks Jim--another superb retort by the "The Final is a Single Degree"
crowd. Gosh, your Blues-Angel-like proficiency is scary, intimidating, and
thrilling (all at once). It gives me goosepimples!

> Jim will never get it resolved, but one way; his way. He is right, and if
> you don't believe that, just ask him.

No, ATC Doug, ATC Paul, and ATC Newps are also right. I happen to agree
with them.

Regards, Jim

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote
>
> >
> > I hope you are able to get this resolved...
>
> Jim will never get it resolved, but one way; his way. He is right, and if
> you don't believe that, just ask him.
>
> I'm glad that he feels comfortable with the criteria for flight he has
> chosen. I only hope that I am never in the same portion of big sky that
he
> is in.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/9/2004
>
>

[MariaSanguini]

IMO, you don't have to be an "expert" on interpreting the FARs ... the input,
expert or not, of everyone who flies is important on this one. Obviously, we
should always be scanning everywhere, but there *are* specific areas where
majority of us *initially* look for traffic said to be in various stages of the
traffic pattern, i.e., *on the extended runway centerline* for other "traffic
on straight-in final", and it's important to your own safety and the safety of
others that you *are* there when your position is announced, either by yourself
or by an ATC.

The issue isn't who is "right" or "wrong", but rather the arrogant,
disappointing attitude that being "right" makes it okay to put yourself in a
spot where you **KNOW** other pilots won't expect you to be if you are
instructed to make "straight-in" final. The ATC thought it was enough of a
concern to call it to your attention ... instead of understanding and
acknowledging WHY she felt it was important to do so, you are ticked-off that
she mentioned it, concerned about not being "wrong", and playing semantics with
the arguments. If this isn't just a great exercise in trolling, I hope, for the
safety of everyone who shares the sky with you, that you get over it soon.

[Jim Cummiskey]

Oops, meant to say "the X-axis aligned at a 45 deg angle to the runway
centerline).

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
news:3xqTc.37453$ih.9766@fed1read07...
> GB, the 45 degree cone Doug was referring to encompassed both sides of the
> extended centerline.
>
> Imagine a large X and Y axis superimposed on any airport (with the X-axis
> aligned with the runway centerline). There are thus four quadrants. If
at
> any time I am moving in respect to the airport in one of those quadrants,
I
> will either be in a "downwind" general direction, a "base" direction, a
> "final/upwind" direction, and a "crosswind" direction. The "Final/Upwind"
> direction represents the domain of what consitutes a "final" in my way of
> thinking (which appears to be shared by at least three ATC controllers).
>
> If you approach an airport at 30 degrees off the extended centerline
> (something that I'm sure most of you have done thousands of times--as I
> have), what leg are you flying?
>
> Regards, Jim
>
> "Flydive" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim Cummiskey wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > (2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45
> degree
> > > cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
> > > instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the
> centerline at
> > > any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME point to
> land
> > > the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile from the
> numbers).
> >
> >
> > Well if you were approaching with a 30 degrees angle you were in a 60
> > degrees cone, outside Doug's definition.
> >
> > GB
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
news:qHoTc.37435$ih.16698@fed1read07...
>
> Nope. I was at a position EXACTLY where I claimed to be. I was 5 miles
> from the airport, and I WAS on final. Thus "5 Miles Final."
>

You're changing your story. In your initial message you wrote; "At 5 miles
from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report '5 mile
final'." So which is it? Were you on final when you reported or were you
offset from the centerline?


>
> As I have attempted to point out numerous times, the real issue is: "Must
> you be on the extended centerline to be on final?" You believe the answer
> is "Yes." I belive that the answer is "No."
>

You say that like it's a matter of opinion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
news:g_oTc.37437$ih.15436@fed1read07...
>
> In respect to my sources, I believe the opinions of a Class C "ATC
> Procedures Specialist" at one of the business airports in Southern
> California, in conjunction with the Tower Manager at the airport where the
> supposed infraction took place trump any other source offered on this
forum
> thus far. Indeed, the regulations (FAR and Order 7110.65) are often less
> than crystal-clear on sticky issues such as these (that's why the FAA
> publishes a FAQ to explain the FAR; if only we had a FAQ to explain the
> FAQ <g>).
>

But the FAR and FAA Order 7110.65 are crystal clear on this issue.


>
> In short, both of these credentialed and informed gentlemen believe
> that you do NOT have to be on the extended centerline to be on "final."
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I share their view.
>

Pertinent documentation indicates that the three of you are wrong.

[Jim Cummiskey]

Appreciate the feedback, Maria. Good points, and I understand and agree
with your comments about the FARs and the expectations of pilots regarding
position reports.

However, a few comments:

> acknowledging WHY she felt it was important to do so, you are ticked-off
that
> she mentioned it, concerned about not being "wrong", and playing semantics
with
> the arguments. If this isn't just a great exercise in trolling, I hope,
for the
> safety of everyone who shares the sky with you, that you get over it soon.

Actually, ATC Doug has a theory WHY she felt it was important for her to
call it to my attention. According to Doug, KPRC is a training facility,
and they have a lot of inexperienced controllers there undergoing training.
As I reported earlier, there was no radio traffic (to my recollection)
within five minutes either side of my initial radio call and my wheels
touching down. Since I was responsible for my own separation, I was quite
attentive to traffic. I don't think there was any other traffic in the
entire Class D airspace. Doug thinks the controller was "pulling my
chain"--perhaps ensuring I understood the domain of her authority on a slow
Sunday morning. But, according to ATC Paul, the Tower Manager, HIS
controller was absolutely WRONG! Does his vote count? Or, am I still just
a troller?

So, yes Maria. I am very concerned about "not being wrong" when I fly. The
consequences are too high. The point is: if it IS perfectly proper
procedure to fly "angled finals" and report them as "finals," then shouldn't
we pilots began to do a little better job of scanning the entire final
quadrant vice only checking only the extended centerline?

So, it has nothing to do with the "semantics of the arguments." It has to
do with coming up with a common language so that when a Controller says X,
the Pilot understands X (and vice-versa). The bottom line is that in this
case we had a clear disconnect. And, three members of the ATC community
agree that "flying directly to the airport, aligning myself with the runway,
and landing" while reporting "5 miles final" at five miles offset from the
centerline was PERFECTLY correct (indeed very COMMON behavior in the
hundreds of airports I've experienced).

Or maybe, you're saying I should have reported "5 miles" only? "5 miles
NE?" How about "5 miles angled final?" Or, is your position, "You can't
fly an angled final ever!?" If so, in the absence of a specific
controller's "Report 'instruction,'" what are you proposing is the minimum
distance every pilot should be on the extended centerline (less I spoil the
the safety of the national airspace system for everyone)? And, what do I
SAY to avoid crashing into someone? Gosh, all us people who have the
arrogance to occasionally fly without radios must really upset all of you
folks who's safety is compromised without continuous position reports. What
happened to "See and Avoid" and "Keep that head on a swivel?"

Regards, Jim

"MariaSanguini" > wrote in message
...
> IMO, you don't have to be an "expert" on interpreting the FARs ... the
input,
> expert or not, of everyone who flies is important on this one. Obviously,
we
> should always be scanning everywhere, but there *are* specific areas where
> majority of us *initially* look for traffic said to be in various stages
of the
> traffic pattern, i.e., *on the extended runway centerline* for other
"traffic
> on straight-in final", and it's important to your own safety and the
safety of
> others that you *are* there when your position is announced, either by
yourself
> or by an ATC.
>
> The issue isn't who is "right" or "wrong", but rather the arrogant,
> disappointing attitude that being "right" makes it okay to put yourself in
a
> spot where you **KNOW** other pilots won't expect you to be if you are
> instructed to make "straight-in" final. The ATC thought it was enough of a
> concern to call it to your attention ... instead of understanding and
> acknowledging WHY she felt it was important to do so, you are ticked-off
that
> she mentioned it, concerned about not being "wrong", and playing semantics
with
> the arguments. If this isn't just a great exercise in trolling, I hope,
for the
> safety of everyone who shares the sky with you, that you get over it soon.
>

[Jim Cummiskey]

> You're changing your story. In your initial message you wrote; "At 5
miles
> from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report '5 mile
> final'." So which is it? Were you on final when you reported or were you
> offset from the centerline?

Both. I WAS on Final, and I WAS offset from the centerline. What a
concept!

> You say that like it's a matter of opinion.

It certainly appears to be on this forum (and unlike some of you "Final is A
Single Degree" Club members, I at least understand your opinion). Do you
understand mine? (as well as the opinons of those members of the ATC
community that I am basing my position on)?

Regards, Jim


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> news:qHoTc.37435$ih.16698@fed1read07...
> >
> > Nope. I was at a position EXACTLY where I claimed to be. I was 5 miles
> > from the airport, and I WAS on final. Thus "5 Miles Final."
> >
>
> You're changing your story. In your initial message you wrote; "At 5
miles
> from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report '5 mile
> final'." So which is it? Were you on final when you reported or were you
> offset from the centerline?
>
>
> >
> > As I have attempted to point out numerous times, the real issue is:
"Must
> > you be on the extended centerline to be on final?" You believe the
answer
> > is "Yes." I belive that the answer is "No."
> >
>
> You say that like it's a matter of opinion.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
news:ZspTc.37445$ih.14790@fed1read07...
>
> Thanks, Steve--you've made some good points. Interestingly, Doug
> quoted the exact paragraph, 3-10-1.g, to illustrate his point that it
> WASN'T standard phraseology.
>

That would indicate he does not understand the paragraph.


>
> I think you have presented yourself as a working Tower ATC.
> If you don't mind, what class of Tower do you work at?
>

Class of tower?


>
> Are you a "Procedures Specialist?"
>

Nope.


>
> What's your contact information?
>

I don't understand that question either.


>
> Not that I'm questioning you, but unfortunately, ATC doesn't have the
> same public-access database we can use to validate someone's expertise.
> I also know ATC has various levels of assignment, competency and
> experience (as obviously do pilots). Could you please describe yours
> for the group so we can assess your relative credibility to Doug and Paul?
>

I work at Green Bay Tower/TRACON, the airspace is Class C. I've been here
for twelve years, I was at Chicago ARTCC for nine years prior.

Why is it a question of credibility? Anyone can come here and claim a high
level of experience. The point is what Doug and Paul are telling you is
contrary to the book.


>
> Steve, I would recommend you contact Doug and Paul directly (I will supply
> their contact info directly to you if desired). Perhaps you three could
> work it out and share what you discover with the pilots on this forum. It
> is distressing to me (although not unexpected) that something so
fundamental
> as the question "Must a final approach be on the extended centerline to be
> considered a final?," is generating such confusion--especially in the ATC
> community. Let's work to get this resolved.
>

There's nothing to be resolved. What Doug and Paul are telling you is
contrary to FAA Order 7110.65. That makes them wrong.


>
> > You wrote, "At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the
> centerline), I report '5 mile final'." How did you measure your distance
> then?
>
> GPS in this case. The 5 miles I reported was accurate. The issue is
> whether I was "on final."
>

No, it's not. You indicated in your first message that you were offset from
the runway centerline by thirty degrees when you reported "5 mile final".
You were not on final when you made that report.


> >
> > Do you consider yourself aligned with the runway when your nose
> > is cocked 30 degrees from the centerline?
> >
>
> Mabye. There is something called crab <g>.
>

Let me rephrase the question. Do you consider yourself aligned with the
runway when your track is 30 degrees from the centerline?


> >
> > Which means you haven't learned a thing from this discussion. So
> > what then was your purpose in starting this thread?
> >
>
> Well, please re-read my message again for my purpose.
>

If your purpose was made clear in your message I wouldn't have had to ask
the question.


>
> And, if you're
> implying that I can learn something ONLY if I agree with YOU, you're
> mistaken. Dare I say you might be able to learn something too? Gosh, how
> impudent of me.
>

You insist your position is correct despite the fact that all pertinent
documentation indicates you're wrong. That's why I asked.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
news:XlrTc.37461$ih.19822@fed1read07...
>
> Actually, ATC Doug has a theory WHY she felt it was important for her to
> call it to my attention. According to Doug, KPRC is a training facility,
> and they have a lot of inexperienced controllers there undergoing
training.
> As I reported earlier, there was no radio traffic (to my recollection)
> within five minutes either side of my initial radio call and my wheels
> touching down. Since I was responsible for my own separation, I was quite
> attentive to traffic. I don't think there was any other traffic in the
> entire Class D airspace. Doug thinks the controller was "pulling my
> chain"--perhaps ensuring I understood the domain of her authority on a
slow
> Sunday morning. But, according to ATC Paul, the Tower Manager, HIS
> controller was absolutely WRONG! Does his vote count? Or, am I still
just
> a troller?
>

Some people just do not handle authority well, that may be the case with
this controller. If there was no other traffic she had no reason to require
you to adjust your flight path in any way. Perhaps that's what ATC Paul and
ATC Doug mean when they say the controller was wrong. Nontheless, her
instruction to report a five mile final was a valid one and you did not
comply with it.


>
> So, yes Maria. I am very concerned about "not being wrong" when I
> fly. The consequences are too high. The point is: if it IS perfectly
proper
> procedure to fly "angled finals" and report them as "finals," then
shouldn't
> we pilots began to do a little better job of scanning the entire final
> quadrant vice only checking only the extended centerline?
>

But it's not proper procedure to fly "angled finals" and report them as
"finals". "Final" has a specific meaning and is defined in the
Pilot/Controller Glossary to ensure pilots are on the same page when they
use the term "final".


>
> So, it has nothing to do with the "semantics of the arguments." It has to
> do with coming up with a common language so that when a Controller
> says X, the Pilot understands X (and vice-versa).
>

That's been done! It's in the P/CG!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
news:3xqTc.37453$ih.9766@fed1read07...
>
> GB, the 45 degree cone Doug was referring to encompassed both sides
> of the extended centerline.
>

A 45 degree cone encompassing both sides of the extended centerline would be
offset 22.5 degrees from the centerline on each side. Your 30 degree offset
put you outside of that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
news:YqrTc.37462$ih.26440@fed1read07...
> >
> > You're changing your story. In your initial message you wrote; "At
> > 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report '5
> > mile final'." So which is it? Were you on final when you reported
> > or were you offset from the centerline?
> >
>
> Both. I WAS on Final, and I WAS offset from the centerline. What a
> concept!
>

Impossible. If you're offset from the centerline you're not on final.


> >
> > You say that like it's a matter of opinion.
> >
>
> It certainly appears to be on this forum (and unlike some of you "Final is
A
> Single Degree" Club members, I at least understand your opinion). Do you
> understand mine? (as well as the opinons of those members of the ATC
> community that I am basing my position on)?
>

It's not a matter of opinion. Others in this forum understand what "final"
means, you clearly do not.

[Flydive]

Jim Cummiskey wrote:
> Oops, meant to say "the X-axis aligned at a 45 deg angle to the runway
> centerline).
>
> "Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message
> news:3xqTc.37453$ih.9766@fed1read07...
>
>>GB, the 45 degree cone Doug was referring to encompassed both sides of the
>>extended centerline.
>>
>>Imagine a large X and Y axis superimposed on any airport (with the X-axis
>>aligned with the runway centerline). There are thus four quadrants. If
>
> at
>
>>any time I am moving in respect to the airport in one of those quadrants,
>
> I
>
>>will either be in a "downwind" general direction, a "base" direction, a
>>"final/upwind" direction, and a "crosswind" direction. The "Final/Upwind"
>>direction represents the domain of what consitutes a "final" in my way of
>>thinking (which appears to be shared by at least three ATC controllers).
>>
>>If you approach an airport at 30 degrees off the extended centerline
>>(something that I'm sure most of you have done thousands of times--as I
>>have), what leg are you flying?
>>
>>Regards, Jim
>>

Ok, now you are saying 45 degrees each side of the extended centerline.

So if then I call downwind the controller would say something like:

" You are number 2, number one is a c172, between 10 and 2 oclock, 7
miles, do you have him in sight?"

Well a pretty big slice of sky to look for you.

Yes, you said there was no other traffic, but this is not the point.

GB

[MariaSanguini]

Due to some AOL-thing, I'm sure, I can't see Jim's full reply to my post, I can
only see the part quoted in Steven's reponse to Jim's response (that makes
sense, doesn't it??!!!).

"Jim Cummiskey" > said:
>Actually, ATC Doug has a theory WHY she felt it was
>important for her to call it to my attention.

So you're arguing on "theory" now?

>According to Doug, KPRC is a training facility, and they
>have a lot of inexperienced controllers there undergoing
>training.

Do you know for certain, or does Doug, that this IS one of those inexperienced
controllers? And not that they're all perfect, but does being relatively new or
inexperienced mean that THEY are "wrong" to mention something to a pilot that
they see might be a potential safety issue?

>Doug thinks the controller was "pulling my chain"--

It's easy to make a judgment like that when you weren't there to see or hear it
all firsthand. It would be interesting to hear from the controller in question
rather than the Monday-morning quarterbackers. Has anyone asked THE CONTROLLER
why she was concerned enough to question your technique for flying a
straight-in approach?

"Steven P. McNicoll" said:
>Some people just do not handle authority well, that may
>be the case with this controller.

Yes, and it seems to also be the case with Jim!!!

Have you ever seen any documentation, either written or on instructional
videotapes, for private pilot students that describes making final approach ANY
OTHER WAY than by lining up the airplane with the extended runway centerline?
Does anyone teach students to fly two different pattern techniques, one when
there is someone else in the pattern and one when it is assumed that you are
alone?

Jim:
>So, yes Maria. I am very concerned about "not being wrong"
>when I fly. The consequences are too high.

They absolutely ARE, no argument there. But the bigger point is not whether it
is "wrong" to fly an angled approach or whether the controller was "wrong" to
call you on it - the point is that flying an angled final that you described is
obviously not what is commonly interpreted as "straight-in" final, it is not
the way flying final approach is taught, and it is not where other pilots would
expect another pilot who was instructed to make "straight-in" approach to be.
So unless there were some unique reason for doing so, whether it is "legal" or
not, why do it? I believe you said you initially called when you were 20 miles
out. God knows that's enough time to have lined yourself up with the centerline
if there wasn't some valid reason not to other than to save one or two minutes
of time.

>The point is: if it IS perfectly proper procedure to fly "angled
>finals" and report them as "finals," then shouldn't we pilots
>began to do a little better job of scanning the entire final
>quadrant vice only checking only the extended centerline?

NO ONE said or implied that ONLY the extended centerline should be checked vs.
the entire final quadrant. But as said in my previous post, when or if a pilot
in the pattern hears that there is traffic making extended "straight-in final",
the FIRST LOGICAL PLACE most will look IS down the extended runway centerline
for that traffic. I don't know about you, but unless there is some REALLY good
reason not to be, I prefer to be in the place where my or the ATC announcement
of my position says I am. For example, a pilot making left downwind almost
abeam the numbers who hears that there is an airplane on extended straight-in
final isn't going to FIRST look to their right to see if you're coming in at an
angle, they're going to FIRST look down the extended runway centerline to see
if they can spot you there. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's just
common sense and common logic since that's the way it is TAUGHT and that's the
way 90-something% (I'm sure) of pilots fly it under normal circumstances.

Steven:
>But it's not proper procedure to fly "angled finals" and report
>them as "finals". "Final" has a specific meaning and is defined
>in the Pilot/Controller Glossary to ensure pilots are on the same
>page when they use the term "final".

EXACTLY!!!

Jim:
>So, it has nothing to do with the "semantics of the arguments."

Right, it has nothing to do with "semantics of the arguments" just as it has
nothing to do with being "right" or "wrong" - that's the whole point!

>It has to do with coming up with jority of us DO understand that when the
controller says "straight-in final", they're talking about being lined up with
the extended runway centerline. I don't know where you commonly fly, but I've
never known ANYONE to mistake that language or instruction to mean approaching
30 degrees to either side of the runway centerline! I shudder to think what
chaos there would be, especially at airports where there is more than one
runway in use at the same time, if everyone thought it was "proper procedure"
to fly 30 degrees to either side of the extended runway centerline when
instructed to make straight-in final!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"MariaSanguini" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >According to Doug, KPRC is a training facility, and they
> >have a lot of inexperienced controllers there undergoing
> >training.
> >
>
> Do you know for certain, or does Doug, that this IS one of those
> inexperienced controllers? And not that they're all perfect, but does
> being relatively new or inexperienced mean that THEY are "wrong"
> to mention something to a pilot that they see might be a potential
> safety issue?
>

If she was undergoing training she'd have had an instructor with her.


>
> Have you ever seen any documentation, either written or on instructional
> videotapes, for private pilot students that describes making final
approach
> ANY OTHER WAY than by lining up the airplane with the extended
> runway centerline?
>

No.

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:45:00 -0700, "Jim Cummiskey"
> wrote:


>chain"--perhaps ensuring I understood the domain of her authority on a slow
>Sunday morning. But, according to ATC Paul, the Tower Manager, HIS
>controller was absolutely WRONG! Does his vote count? Or, am I still just
>a troller?

According to the other ATC controllers who have posted here, who have
given you the clear text verbiage from the FARs, AIM, and FAA
documentation that the controllers are supposed to be going by, I
would say that no - that tower manager's vote doesn't count.

>So, yes Maria. I am very concerned about "not being wrong" when I fly. The
>consequences are too high. The point is: if it IS perfectly proper
>procedure to fly "angled finals" and report them as "finals," then shouldn't
>we pilots began to do a little better job of scanning the entire final
>quadrant vice only checking only the extended centerline?

Looking in the AIM I don't see an "angled" final anywhere. I do see a
depiction of a rectangular course, with 3 of the legs labeled
"downwind, base, final" and a note that says the base to final turn
should not overshoot the final course, and that turn should be no
closer than 1/4 mile from the runway. So, the normal final course is
on or reasonably close to the centerline, with a 0 degree difference
between the ground track and the runway heading, regardless of where
your aircraft is pointing to deal with wind correction. Thus, for all
the provided documentation to make any sense at all, an instruction to
complete a 5 mile final would require you to intercept the extended
centerline, heading for the runway, at a point 5 or more miles out.

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Cummiskey" > wrote in message news:DoqTc.37452

Geez, Jim, you sure do love to rant! Careful, or you might give someone the
idea that I hit a hot button.


>
> ...I think the experience metric might be in my favor for
> the vast majority of the folk on this forum, Doc.

Well, you may be right. I don't know.

> What are you flying, BTW?

I don't fly anything right now.


> .... Instead of INSISTING that your
> perspective is the only possible conclusion,

I never did any such thing. What I was merely pointing out was what various
pilots and air carriers have learned over the years - that predictable,
standardized procedures go a long way toward stabilizing the safety
environment and decreasing the likelihood of accidents. And that
disregarding standardized expectations can be inherently dangerous, whether
you're technically correct or not.

>
> The regs ARE confusing, imprecise, and often contradictory. They need
> interpretation badly.

Absolutely right. What they don't need is hipshot, case-by-case individual
interpretation on a daily basis.

>... There is no right and wrong. All rules
> and laws merely offer a set of guidelines to be used as a general model
for
> our behavior.

Interesting. Moral relativism in the cockpit. Let me know how it works
out.


> Does it make you NERVOUS that one of your most
> preciously-held views of the world is being challenged?

"Preciously-held views..."? LOL. Nothing in aviation comes close to being
any of my most "...preciously-held views..."


>...(BTW, how many
> hours have you logged in the last year, Doc)?

Oh, I haven't logged any time in the last few years. I stopped flying a few
years ago after about 25 years and about 18000 hours.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim Cummiskey wrote:
>
> As I have attempted to point out numerous times, the real issue is: "Must
> you be on the extended centerline to be on final?" You believe the answer
> is "Yes." I belive that the answer is "No."

You are wrong. Final is defined as the extended centerline.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim Cummiskey wrote:
>
> Frankly, I would be more inclined to believe them in contrast to some of the
> wannabes who believe access to a digital copy of the FARs and Order 7110.65
> is all it takes to interpret the gray areas of aviation.

Then you're stupider than you so far have appeared -- and that's saying something.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Under any circumstances, when flying a straight-in approach VFR, the
> aircraft should be on the extended runway centerline (obviously flying
> runway heading)

Track. Heading would be different according to the wind.

Ahem, sorry, since everyone seems to be nit-picking these days!

:-)

Paul