Amateur night at the field

[Viperdoc]

Arrived at around 2200 last night IFR at our local field, and heard a pilot
doing position reports on the CTAF. I spotted the traffic (night touch and
goes), and also announced. As I established on final, she announced a full
stop, and then proceeded to land and taxi the whole length of the mile long
runway to go to her hangar.

Of course, this necessitated a go around, since there was no way I could go
slow enough to avoid landing while she taxied down the whole runway.

Then, as I was turning base, another slow mover said he was on a three mile
final to the runway. Even though I had already turned base, was inside him,
and going a lot faster, I elected to extend the downwind, since he had
announced his intention to land even though he knew I was on a tight base
leg.

I guess I was taught to exit the runway as expeditiously as possible at
uncontrolled fields, and also that planes on base or closer to the airport
had the right of way.

Isn't this supposed to be common courtesy, or am I being overly critical and
self righteous?

[Roy Smith]

"Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Then, as I was turning base, another slow mover said he was on a three mile
> final to the runway. Even though I had already turned base, was inside him,
> and going a lot faster, I elected to extend the downwind, since he had
> announced his intention to land even though he knew I was on a tight base
> leg.

I don't understand this one. He's 2 miles behind you and slower. What
possible problem could there have been? Why not just continue your pattern
and land normally?

I also don't understand what you mean when you say you had already turned
base, but then elected to extend downwind.

> I guess I was taught to exit the runway as expeditiously as possible at
> uncontrolled fields

Controlled ones too.

> and also that planes on base or closer to the airport
> had the right of way.

In what way did the guy on 3 mile final violate this?

[Viperdoc]

Sorry, to clarify, I had turned base and had him in sight, and announced the
same. He said "I'm on a three mile final and landing", and the tone of his
voice made it very clear that he did not intend to give way or slow down. I
turned out of base back to downwind and followed him in- it didn't seem
worth arguing over the radio or creating a traffic conflict, and I didn't
want to have him go around if it was too close, as had just happened to me.

I also forgot to mention that the first plane then announced she was
crossing the runway as he came down final. He called "where, where are you
crossing the runway?" Overall, he sounded kind of stressed and overloaded,
and it simply wasn't worth arguing over the air.

[Gary Drescher]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> I guess I was taught to exit the runway as expeditiously as possible at
> uncontrolled fields, and also that planes on base or closer to the airport
> had the right of way.
>
> Isn't this supposed to be common courtesy, or am I being overly critical
> and self righteous?

AIM 4-3-20a says "Exit the runway without delay at the first available
taxiway", so that's more than just a matter of courtesy.

On the other hand, you were taught incorrectly about landing priority. FAR
91.113g gives the right of way to the aircraft on final approach (a
lower-altitude aircraft on base is not supposed to cut in front of one on
final if there's a conflict). If you had plenty of time to land before the
other aircraft came close, then there was no conflict and you could have
proceeded. But if there was any doubt, you did the right thing by extending
your downwind. In either case, the pilot on final did nothing improper.

--Gary

[Viperdoc]

I agree in principle with your statement. However, the other pilot was VFR
and flying a practice ILS to the landing runway. His "final" was about 8
miles in length as he flew the ILS. He was in a Warrior and I was flying a
Baron, so there was a significant difference in speed.

While I easily could have turned in and landed well before him, why make
things tight and more stressful for him at night during a practice approach?
I decided to not force the issue and extended the downwind (a long way,
since he was relatively so slow). It was very clear from the tone of his
voice and his response to the other pilot's runway crossing that he was
getting pretty stressed.

[Gary Drescher]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
>I agree in principle with your statement. However, the other pilot was VFR
>and flying a practice ILS to the landing runway. His "final" was about 8
>miles in length as he flew the ILS. He was in a Warrior and I was flying a
>Baron, so there was a significant difference in speed.
>
> While I easily could have turned in and landed well before him, why make
> things tight and more stressful for him at night during a practice
> approach? I decided to not force the issue and extended the downwind (a
> long way, since he was relatively so slow). It was very clear from the
> tone of his voice and his response to the other pilot's runway crossing
> that he was getting pretty stressed.

Yup, sounds like you did what was prudent and courteous.

--Gary

[Kingfish]

>>>Yup, sounds like you did what was prudent and courteous. <<<

Agreed. You probably could have squeezed in ahead of the Warrior
without much hassle but considering his tone on the radio I think your
extending downwind to slot in behind him was a good call. As for the
knucklehead that taxied down the runway necessitating a go-around, I'd
have had a tough time not saying anything on the frequency about the
lack of courtesy. I usually just bitch on the intercom when something
like this happens : ) If it's such an egregious show of stupidity
that I just can't help myself I'll have a word with the offender on the
ground and not on the radio.

[Viperdoc]

Thanks for the input. I try to not be critical of other pilots, since I have
done more than my own share of bonehead moves.

On the other hand it's hard to not get frustrated, since we had just flown
nearly three hours in night IMC, dodging thunderstorms, picked up ice, got
bounced around, etc, only to have to go around because someone decided to
taxi full length even knowing someone was on final right behind her.

[Gary Drescher]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the input. I try to not be critical of other pilots, since I
> have done more than my own share of bonehead moves.
>
> On the other hand it's hard to not get frustrated, since we had just flown
> nearly three hours in night IMC, dodging thunderstorms, picked up ice, got
> bounced around, etc, only to have to go around because someone decided to
> taxi full length even knowing someone was on final right behind her.

You say she's hangared at the airport, so it might be useful to send her a
polite note about the problem, citing the relevant AIM passage.

--Gary

[Kingfish]

>>>I try to not be critical of other pilots, since I have done more than my own share of bonehead moves. <<<

I've had my own stupid pilot tricks too, I just figure that pointing
out a potentially dangerous (or just discourteous) maneuver might
comprosmise safety at some point. Since becoming a CFI I see things
from a different perspective.

[Peter R.]

Viperdoc > wrote:

> Arrived at around 2200 last night IFR at our local field, and heard a pilot
> doing position reports on the CTAF. I spotted the traffic (night touch and
> goes), and also announced. As I established on final, she announced a full
> stop, and then proceeded to land and taxi the whole length of the mile long
> runway to go to her hangar.

At what airport did this occur? I wanted to look at an airport diagram to
see what options she had.

--
Peter

[john smith]

> Isn't this supposed to be common courtesy, or am I being overly critical and
> self righteous?

It is related to poor instruction that we see more common these days.
Instructors are supposed to include "judgement" training in their
syllabus. Common sense is something that cannot be taught. My
observation is that there is both a lack of judgement and common sense
among new pilots.

[Kingfish]

>>>I've had my own stupid pilot tricks too, I just figure that pointing out a potentially dangerous (or just discourteous) maneuver might comprosmise safety at some point.<<<

Oops, need to clarify here. I meant to say that pointing out a
dangerous or discourteous manuever might *prevent* safety from being
compromised later. Gotta be tactful and approach it from a safety
standpoint, as nobody likes a know-it-all.

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 09 May 2006 12:48:58 GMT, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>Arrived at around 2200 last night IFR

>Isn't this supposed to be common courtesy, or am I being overly critical and
>self righteous?

I think a bit of both...

First, I regularly see pilots get lax with procedures when traffic
flow is light (late evenings, night, etc), so this leads to things
like right hand traffic patterns, long straight-ins, and NORDO pattern
work. So I am not surprised to see others seeing the same.

While the full length taxi was not the nice thing to do (especially if
there were taxiway exits and a parallel taxiway), ultimately the fault
is on you. We as pilots have to expect the unexpected, and if we
choose to reduce our spacing on final, we have increased the
likelyhood of a go-around should the pilot be pokey on the ground.

On the 2nd event, as long as I had visual on the 3 mile final, I would
have continued and landed. If I did not have visual, I would have
extended (as you did). I never expect another pilot to slow down for
me. Too many of them are not paying attention outside of their own
plane!

-Nathan

[john smith]

Three miles is not on final, it is entering the traffic pattern.
I tell them to call when they are one mile, even that is big for a
pattern.

[soxinbox]

And after all, you were in a Baron, and she was in a warrior! How dare she
make you wait!

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thanks for the input. I try to not be critical of other pilots, since I
>> have done more than my own share of bonehead moves.
>>
>> On the other hand it's hard to not get frustrated, since we had just
>> flown nearly three hours in night IMC, dodging thunderstorms, picked up
>> ice, got bounced around, etc, only to have to go around because someone
>> decided to taxi full length even knowing someone was on final right
>> behind her.
>
> You say she's hangared at the airport, so it might be useful to send her a
> polite note about the problem, citing the relevant AIM passage.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[soxinbox]

Three miles can be on final. What if you had to extend your final because
there were straight in finals ahead of you. You could easily find yourself
on a three mile final. I remember being extended at a busy class D. They
kept putting Lear jets straight in ahead of me, and extending my downwind. I
ended up about 10 miles out. I finally told the controller he should either
fit me into the pattern or turn me over to the neighboring class B
controller whose space I was entering.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Three miles is not on final, it is entering the traffic pattern.
> I tell them to call when they are one mile, even that is big for a
> pattern.

[john smith]

Proper procedure when other traffic is already in the pattern would be
to overfly the airport at least 500 feet above pattern altitude and
enter upwind crosswind behind any traffic already in the pattern.

> Three miles can be on final. What if you had to extend your final because
> there were straight in finals ahead of you. You could easily find yourself
> on a three mile final. I remember being extended at a busy class D. They
> kept putting Lear jets straight in ahead of me, and extending my downwind. I
> ended up about 10 miles out. I finally told the controller he should either
> fit me into the pattern or turn me over to the neighboring class B
> controller whose space I was entering.

> > Three miles is not on final, it is entering the traffic pattern.
> > I tell them to call when they are one mile, even that is big for a
> > pattern.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...


>
> Then, as I was turning base, another slow mover said he was on a three
> mile final to the runway. Even though I had already turned base, was
> inside him, and going a lot faster, I elected to extend the downwind,
> since he had announced his intention to land even though he knew I was on
> a tight base leg.
>

He may not have heard your call either from neglect or from a freq change.
Did you repeat your base call. Plus you said he was both behind you and
slower I don't see a problem .

[john smith]

In article om>,
"Kingfish" > wrote:

> John S. wrote:
>
> >>>Proper procedure when other traffic is already in the pattern would be
> to overfly the airport at least 500 feet above pattern altitude and
> enter upwind crosswind behind any traffic already in the pattern<<<
>
> Proper procedure? According to whom? (this thread could go on forever)
> Overflying the pattern above pattern altitude would require a descent
> on top of other traffic. That doesn't sound like such a good idea,
> unless I'm missing your point. Whatever happened to joining the
> midfield downwind at a 45 degree angle? I thought that was recommended
> in the AIM?

Re-read the last sentence...

"enter upwind crosswind behind any traffic already in the pattern"

[Kingfish]

John S. wrote:

>>>"enter upwind crosswind behind any traffic already in the pattern" <<<

It's the "upwind crosswind" part that doesn't make sense to me.
Regardless, I don't think entering the pattern above pattern alt. is a
good idea.

AC 90-66A says "Arriving aircraft should be at the appropriate traffic
pattern altitude before entering the traffic pattern. Entry to the
downwind leg should be at a 45 degree angle abeam the midpoint of the
runway."

That works for me, no need to re-invent the wheel.

[soxinbox]

That is sort of hard to do when on a practice instrument approach.

I am confused by the upwind crosswind part of your statement. Did you mean
enter the upwind leg by flying crosswind. That would mean you just overflew
the downwind that you could have entered at 45. Or did you mean enter the
crosswind leg upwind of the runway? That would make more sense, but I think
you are supposed to fly across the upwind end of the runway right across the
numbers. That way you aren't likely to get into the way of departing
traffic. This also becomes a problem on long runways were some planes can be
at pattern altitude plus 500 by the end of the runway.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Proper procedure when other traffic is already in the pattern would be
> to overfly the airport at least 500 feet above pattern altitude and
> enter upwind crosswind behind any traffic already in the pattern.
>
>> Three miles can be on final. What if you had to extend your final because
>> there were straight in finals ahead of you. You could easily find
>> yourself
>> on a three mile final. I remember being extended at a busy class D. They
>> kept putting Lear jets straight in ahead of me, and extending my
>> downwind. I
>> ended up about 10 miles out. I finally told the controller he should
>> either
>> fit me into the pattern or turn me over to the neighboring class B
>> controller whose space I was entering.
>
>> > Three miles is not on final, it is entering the traffic pattern.
>> > I tell them to call when they are one mile, even that is big for a
>> > pattern.

[john smith]

In article >,
"soxinbox" > wrote:

> That is sort of hard to do when on a practice instrument approach.

If there is other traffic in the pattern, unless they are violating the
regs, you will break out into VFR conditions a mile or two from the
runway. You then follow the last airplane in the pattern.

> I am confused by the upwind crosswind part of your statement. Did you mean
> enter the upwind leg by flying crosswind. That would mean you just overflew
> the downwind that you could have entered at 45. Or did you mean enter the
> crosswind leg upwind of the runway? That would make more sense, but I think
> you are supposed to fly across the upwind end of the runway right across the
> numbers. That way you aren't likely to get into the way of departing
> traffic. This also becomes a problem on long runways were some planes can be
> at pattern altitude plus 500 by the end of the runway.

You guys are way over thinking the problem. If you overfly the runway
above pattern altitude you have a clear view of any aircraft in any
position in the pattern and follow the last airplane accordinly without
interferring. This keeps you in a postion to land on the airport from
anywhere in the pattern.

[Viperdoc]

The scenario I originally described was night VMC, not a mix of IFR and VFR
aircraft. The tower was closed.

[Kingfish]

>>>If you overfly the runway above pattern altitude you have a clear view of any aircraft in any position <<<

That makes sense unless another acft is lost among the ground clutter.
At what point do you descent to pattern alt? That part I think is a bad
idea as the potential is always there to come down on top of another
plane in the pattern (the one you *didn't* see)

I'll stick with the AIM's recommendation on this one.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"Kingfish" > wrote:

> >>>If you overfly the runway above pattern altitude you have a clear view of
> >>>any aircraft in any position <<<
>
> That makes sense unless another acft is lost among the ground clutter.
> At what point do you descent to pattern alt? That part I think is a bad
> idea as the potential is always there to come down on top of another
> plane in the pattern (the one you *didn't* see)
>
> I'll stick with the AIM's recommendation on this one.


The 360 overhead approach at pattern altitude works well. You come down
the runway centerline at cruise, check for traffic, break toward the
downwind over the threshold, pull power, should be at gear speed at the
180 point, drop flaps, continue the circle, ending at the threshold, and
flare to land.

Properly done, this approach is done power off after the break and
results in minimum time in the pattern. Remember, you are not in the
pattern until downwind -- likewise, those on the 45 or on straightin are
NOT on the pattern!

Be sure to check for traffic at all times.

[Kingfish]

>>>You come down the runway centerline at cruise, break toward the downwind over the threshold, pull power, should be at gear speed at the 180 point, drop flaps, continue the circle, ending at the threshold, and flare to land. Properly done, this approach is done power off after the break and results in minimum time in the pattern<<<

So, what's wrong with the 45 entry to downwind? The overhead break you
describe here with its rapid power reduction wouldn't do much for your
engine if it's high horsepower or turbocharged. That's not good power
management IMO. The other potential problem I see is that other traffic
already in the pattern wouldn't be expecting another acft to join the
pattern in the way you've described and might not be looking in that
direction. If everyone is using the same pattern entry procedure I
think it would minimize the chance of two planes meeting. If there's
nobody else in the pattern I guess it doesn't matter, but if there is
I'd leave the fighter pilot stuff to the Air Force and use the AIM
recommended entry.

[B A R R Y]

Viperdoc wrote:
> The scenario I originally described was night VMC, not a mix of IFR and VFR
> aircraft. The tower was closed.
>

You *can* practice IFR approaches at non-towered fields. The local
approach control vectors you to the localizer, you shoot the approach,
and you make all the calls that you'd make to a tower on the CTAF.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
"Kingfish" > wrote:

> >>>You come down the runway centerline at cruise, break toward the downwind
> >>>over the threshold, pull power, should be at gear speed at the 180 point,
> >>>drop flaps, continue the circle, ending at the threshold, and flare to
> >>>land. Properly done, this approach is done power off after the break and
> >>>results in minimum time in the pattern<<<
>
> So, what's wrong with the 45 entry to downwind? The overhead break you
> describe here with its rapid power reduction wouldn't do much for your
> engine if it's high horsepower or turbocharged. That's not good power
> management IMO. The other potential problem I see is that other traffic
> already in the pattern wouldn't be expecting another acft to join the
> pattern in the way you've described and might not be looking in that
> direction. If everyone is using the same pattern entry procedure I
> think it would minimize the chance of two planes meeting. If there's
> nobody else in the pattern I guess it doesn't matter, but if there is
> I'd leave the fighter pilot stuff to the Air Force and use the AIM
> recommended entry.


Kingfish,

If you had read my posting completely, you would have noticed that you
ALWAYS check for traffic in the pattern.

The 45 entry is fine -- if you are coming from that direction! The
overhead approach is far better than straightin, as it gives you
awareness of both those in and those entering the pattern. It also keeps
you in close, so as to avoid long, drawn-out patterns that so many
flight schools appear to be fond of these days.

Also, if you are in a flight, the o/h is the quickest, most efficient
way of getting the flight on the ground.

Reality check: Even if everybody were to use the 45 entry, they wouldn't
all be usinf the same set of references. Some would be a mile away on
downwind, while others would be 1/4 mile away. Then you have a problem!

There is simply no excuse for a three mile "final" in a light aircraft!

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:11:52 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article om>,
> "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
>> >>>You come down the runway centerline at cruise, break toward the downwind
>> >>>over the threshold, pull power, should be at gear speed at the 180 point,
>> >>>drop flaps, continue the circle, ending at the threshold, and flare to
>> >>>land. Properly done, this approach is done power off after the break and
>> >>>results in minimum time in the pattern<<<
>>
>> So, what's wrong with the 45 entry to downwind? The overhead break you
>> describe here with its rapid power reduction wouldn't do much for your
>> engine if it's high horsepower or turbocharged. That's not good power
>> management IMO. The other potential problem I see is that other traffic
>> already in the pattern wouldn't be expecting another acft to join the
>> pattern in the way you've described and might not be looking in that
>> direction. If everyone is using the same pattern entry procedure I
>> think it would minimize the chance of two planes meeting. If there's
>> nobody else in the pattern I guess it doesn't matter, but if there is
>> I'd leave the fighter pilot stuff to the Air Force and use the AIM
>> recommended entry.
>
>
>Kingfish,
>
>If you had read my posting completely, you would have noticed that you
>ALWAYS check for traffic in the pattern.
>
>The 45 entry is fine -- if you are coming from that direction! The
>overhead approach is far better than straightin, as it gives you
>awareness of both those in and those entering the pattern. It also keeps
>you in close, so as to avoid long, drawn-out patterns that so many
>flight schools appear to be fond of these days.
>
>Also, if you are in a flight, the o/h is the quickest, most efficient
>way of getting the flight on the ground.
>
>Reality check: Even if everybody were to use the 45 entry, they wouldn't
>all be usinf the same set of references. Some would be a mile away on
>downwind, while others would be 1/4 mile away. Then you have a problem!
>
>There is simply no excuse for a three mile "final" in a light aircraft!

The only two recommended approaches in the AIM are the 45 and
(believe it or not), the straight-in. I'm also a fan of the 360
overhead approach. It may look like somebody is playing fighter
pilot, but in fact, it's a very safe approach (the military doesn't do
it just because it looks cool....).

Here's at least one example where I think an overhead approach would
be safer than a 45.

Say the weather is dog sh_t, and visibility is down to or near VFR
minimums, and there is terrain obscuration around the vicinity of
your destination airport. Do you want to dilly dally around and
possibly fly *away* from the airport (basically turn your back to it)
so you can fly out so some point, then turn around and head back in
on a 45?

Not me... If the weather is poor, and I'm heading towards an airport
and I have it in sight off the nose, I'm going to keep it in sight,
break over the numbers and circle to land.

There have been two mid-air collisions near my home-base airport
over the last several decades. Both occurred at the "convergence"
of the entry to the 45 (a popular reporting point for said 45 entry).
My one close call to a mid-air (in 29+ years of flying) also occurred
at the entry to a 45 at a near-by un-controlled field.

Bela P. Havasreti

[Matt Barrow]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:11:52 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote:
>>Reality check: Even if everybody were to use the 45 entry, they wouldn't
>>all be usinf the same set of references. Some would be a mile away on
>>downwind, while others would be 1/4 mile away. Then you have a problem!
>>
>>There is simply no excuse for a three mile "final" in a light aircraft!
>
....
>
> There have been two mid-air collisions near my home-base airport
> over the last several decades. Both occurred at the "convergence"
> of the entry to the 45 (a popular reporting point for said 45 entry).
> My one close call to a mid-air (in 29+ years of flying) also occurred
> at the entry to a 45 at a near-by un-controlled field.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html Pelican's Perch #30:
The 45-Degree Zealots

[Kingfish]

Orval F wrote:

>>>If you had read my posting completely<<<

I did.

>>>you would have noticed that you ALWAYS check for traffic in the pattern. <<<

I do.

After re-reading Deakin's article on pattern ops (thanks Matt) I've had
to rethink the upwind entry idea. I know the 45 isn't always the best
way, as often times I'll enter on a base or straight in, but always
after announcing my position & intent on CTAF.

>>>There is simply no excuse for a three mile "final" in a light aircraft<<<

Agreed, unless you're in a very busy pattern (been there) or you're
extending downwind for someone 'cause you're a nice guy :o )

[Casey Wilson]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Orval F wrote:
>
>>>>If you had read my posting completely<<<
>
> I did.
>
>>>>you would have noticed that you ALWAYS check for traffic in the pattern.
>>>><<<
>
> I do.
>
> After re-reading Deakin's article on pattern ops (thanks Matt) I've had
> to rethink the upwind entry idea. I know the 45 isn't always the best
> way, as often times I'll enter on a base or straight in, but always
> after announcing my position & intent on CTAF.
>
>>>>There is simply no excuse for a three mile "final" in a light
>>>>aircraft<<<
>
> Agreed, unless you're in a very busy pattern (been there) or you're
> extending downwind for someone 'cause you're a nice guy :o )

....or the tower says, "...extend your downwind, I'll call your base."

[Kingfish]

>>>...or the tower says, "...extend your downwind, I'll call your base." <<<

That too, but the subject was uncontrolled fields