How often do you have to go around?

[Mxsmanic]

In simulation, the simulated ATC seems to be very inefficient at
spacing aircraft, because practically every fifth aircraft on landing
is told to go around. In fact, if you are told to follow someone in
for a landing, you can take for granted that he won't clear the runway
in time and you'll be told to go around. It's tiresome and
frustrating after spending a lot of effort to line things up nicely.

How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
necessary to abort a landing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> In simulation, the simulated ATC seems to be very inefficient at
> spacing aircraft, because practically every fifth aircraft on landing
> is told to go around. In fact, if you are told to follow someone in
> for a landing, you can take for granted that he won't clear the runway
> in time and you'll be told to go around. It's tiresome and
> frustrating after spending a lot of effort to line things up nicely.
>
It's rare. I can't recall ever being told to go around at Dulles and
I can recall only once having a Gulfstream sent around because I was
on the runway. It's more common at airports with a lot of instructional
activity. People don't clear the runway or mess up the spacing, or
don't take off promptly when cleared, etc...


I suspect the flight games throw in a few more unexpected incidents,
malfunctions, etc... to make the games more interesting.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> I suspect the flight games throw in a few more unexpected incidents,
> malfunctions, etc... to make the games more interesting.

Well, it would be nice if there were a dial to change this. You can
reduce the amount of activity with other aircraft in MSFS, but you
can't control exactly how that activity is conducted.

Indeed, it would be nice to be able to select different airport
activity scenarios for practice. The specificity of instructional
activity that you mention is one example. A simulation of Oshkosh
might be interesting. And of course accurate simulations of extremely
busy, large airports--and tiny fields with incompetent local pilots
doing foolish things, perhaps.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Wanttaja]

I've had to go around maybe ~10 times in the last 20 years....not counting a
botched landing or two (or twenty :-). Most common case is a plane deciding to
taxi all they way to the end of the runway instead of taking an early turnoff,
but I've had two-three cases of planes pulling onto the runway when I'm on short
final.

Ron Wanttaja

[Timmay]

Yes, go-arounds are a relatively uncommon experience at the larger
airports. Most of the pilots/controllers coming into and out of busy
airports have been doing it long enough that the flow isn't disrupted
often.

[[email protected]]

Just do what you'd do in real life - slow down. When you find yourself
closely following traffic to the runway, you can create more time
between you and the guy in front by slowing down. Of course, this may
cause trouble for the guy behind you, but that's his problem. You can
also fly S-turns to create additional spacing.



On Oct 14, 10:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
> > I suspect the flight games throw in a few more unexpected incidents,
> > malfunctions, etc... to make the games more interesting.Well, it would be nice if there were a dial to change this. You can
> reduce the amount of activity with other aircraft in MSFS, but you
> can't control exactly how that activity is conducted.
>
> Indeed, it would be nice to be able to select different airport
> activity scenarios for practice. The specificity of instructional
> activity that you mention is one example. A simulation of Oshkosh
> might be interesting. And of course accurate simulations of extremely
> busy, large airports--and tiny fields with incompetent local pilots
> doing foolish things, perhaps.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Just do what you'd do in real life - slow down. When you find yourself
> closely following traffic to the runway, you can create more time
> between you and the guy in front by slowing down. Of course, this may
> cause trouble for the guy behind you, but that's his problem. You can
> also fly S-turns to create additional spacing.

In the sim, the problem is usually that the plane in front of me
lingers on the runway after landing. Then the controller tells me to
go around. I'm not given the option of refusing (although sometimes I
just ignore the controller and continue).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that

About twice in 15 years, both times at an uncontrolled field.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Speed is life, altitude is life insurance. No one has ever collided with
the sky.

[d&tm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> In simulation, the simulated ATC seems to be very inefficient at
> spacing aircraft, because practically every fifth aircraft on landing
> is told to go around. In fact, if you are told to follow someone in
> for a landing, you can take for granted that he won't clear the runway
> in time and you'll be told to go around. It's tiresome and
> frustrating after spending a lot of effort to line things up nicely.
>
> How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
> real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
> necessary to abort a landing.
>

Quite frequently at the small non controlled field I fly out of in
Australia. The reason being we share it with a glider operation, Although
the gliders operate from the grass beside the bitumen strip it is close
enough that we have to consider it as the same runway. And of course for
obvious reasons powered aircraft have to give way to gliders.
terry

[Mxsmanic]

d&tm writes:

> And of course for obvious reasons powered aircraft have to give
> way to gliders.

I guess one can't really ask a glider to go around.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

Might want to try slowing down when you're 2nd in line. Leave more space
between you. Make the next guy go around.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, it would be nice if there were a dial to change this. You can
> reduce the amount of activity with other aircraft in MSFS, but you
> can't control exactly how that activity is conducted.
>

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> Might want to try slowing down when you're 2nd in line. Leave more space
> between you. Make the next guy go around.

I tried it, but he was in a Cessna (152, or whatever comes with MSFS),
and I was in a Baron, and I was uneasy about trying to slow too much
when so close to the ground and so close to landing myself. I ended
up passing beneath him as he slowed. Although it's possible to ignore
collisions in MSFS, I went around and spent another five or ten
minutes flying a pattern of sorts and coming in again (I need practice
flying patterns, anyway, I guess).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[NW_Pilot]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> I've had two-three cases of planes pulling onto the runway when I'm on
> short
> final.
>
> Ron Wanttaja


Don't you just hate that when that happens!!!

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
> real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
> necessary to abort a landing.

In a few hundred hours flying out of Hanscom (primary GA field for
Boston) I've had to go around maybe a half-dozen times, mostly for
runway-lingering by the plane in front. Once the controller sequenced
me a little too tightly. It is a very busy field on the weekends with a
lot of training to keep things messy- 5th in line to take off or land
is not unusual.

In about a half-million airline miles, mostly continental US, I've had
one go-around, on the Delta Shuttle into Boston, because the plane
ahead had not cleared the runway in time. It was a CAVU day and I'd
guess we were well inside the middle marker when they threw in the
towel.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> d&tm writes:
>
>> And of course for obvious reasons powered aircraft have to give
>> way to gliders.
>
> I guess one can't really ask a glider to go around.
>
There's no rule that says you have to give way to gliders.
If you are lower and on final you have the right of way.
Of course, common sense says to give gliders and others
restricted in ability to manouver the right of way.'


In addition, while ATC may have rules to that don't allow
them to permit it, there is no regulation from the pilot
side that says you can't have two aircraft on the runway
at the same time. You do have to be very careful however.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> mike regish writes:
>
>> Might want to try slowing down when you're 2nd in line. Leave more space
>> between you. Make the next guy go around.
>
> I tried it, but he was in a Cessna (152, or whatever comes with MSFS),
> and I was in a Baron, and I was uneasy about trying to slow too much
> when so close to the ground and so close to landing myself.

You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I believe it
is a 182). I don't know what kind of approaches you are making
in the game, but you should hang further back in faster aircraft.
If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the FAA on
short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.

[A Lieberma]

Ron Natalie > wrote in
:

> You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I believe it
> is a 182). I don't know what kind of approaches you are making
> in the game, but you should hang further back in faster aircraft.
> If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the FAA on
> short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.

Dang Ron,

Didn't you know that the lower plane has the right of way in REAL life and
you should give way to a plane passing under you on final

*tongue in cheek*.

Allen

[Dan[_1_]]

Right.. for example at OSH where they are landing 3 planes at a time on
the same runway.


Ron Natalie wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > d&tm writes:
> >
> >> And of course for obvious reasons powered aircraft have to give
> >> way to gliders.
> >
> > I guess one can't really ask a glider to go around.
> >
> There's no rule that says you have to give way to gliders.
> If you are lower and on final you have the right of way.
> Of course, common sense says to give gliders and others
> restricted in ability to manouver the right of way.'
>
>
> In addition, while ATC may have rules to that don't allow
> them to permit it, there is no regulation from the pilot
> side that says you can't have two aircraft on the runway
> at the same time. You do have to be very careful however.

[Robert M. Gary]

I did once about 4 years ago. We were coming home at night. Because my
airport is in a bowl and because there are hills in the area you lose
sight of the airport while turning base. I misjudged the turn and
turned too soon. Once I got around the hill, ready to turn final I
realized that I was too close and went around. My wife was curious
because she'd never seen a go-around before.
However, with my students we do go-arounds all the time. I'll often
wait until just before the wheels hit before calling go-around. Also,
during engine out practice we get down pretty low over the fields
(maybe 40 feet up) and I'll call go around.

-Robert, CFII


Mxsmanic wrote:
> In simulation, the simulated ATC seems to be very inefficient at
> spacing aircraft, because practically every fifth aircraft on landing
> is told to go around. In fact, if you are told to follow someone in
> for a landing, you can take for granted that he won't clear the runway
> in time and you'll be told to go around. It's tiresome and
> frustrating after spending a lot of effort to line things up nicely.
>
> How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
> real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
> necessary to abort a landing.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Robert Chambers]

never happens, ever. You just tell ATC, "I can stop short of my
traffic" I've never been told to "go around, traffic following 1 mile,
citation" that never happens ever.. didn't happen last week during an IPC.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> In simulation, the simulated ATC seems to be very inefficient at
> spacing aircraft, because practically every fifth aircraft on landing
> is told to go around. In fact, if you are told to follow someone in
> for a landing, you can take for granted that he won't clear the runway
> in time and you'll be told to go around. It's tiresome and
> frustrating after spending a lot of effort to line things up nicely.
>
> How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
> real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
> necessary to abort a landing.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I believe it
> is a 182).

Heck, I couldn't even see the Cessna until it was about a quarter-mile
away. I spent a long time searching for it.

I think one problem is that I was not flying the pattern correctly.
The Cessna pulled in front of me. I'm still not clear on how long
each leg of the pattern is supposed to be, although I'm very gradually
getting better at flying a pattern without wandering all over the
place.

> I don't know what kind of approaches you are making
> in the game, but you should hang further back in faster aircraft.

Right now I'm just trying to fly a pattern correctly by myself. Once
I master that, I'll try to worry more about other aircraft in the
pattern.

> If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the FAA on
> short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.

That's the advantage of simulation. Mistakes in simulation cost
nothing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I think one problem is that I was not flying the pattern correctly.
> The Cessna pulled in front of me. I'm still not clear on how long
> each leg of the pattern is supposed to be, although I'm very gradually
> getting better at flying a pattern without wandering all over the
> place.

I think the problem is that you are not in a REAL PLANE. You would be less
prone to wandering when you can see the world in three dimension rather
then the flat screen of a monitor.

Oh gee, there is a pilot side window, a co-pilot / passenger window and
even in some planes a rear window you can quickly glance out to assess your
situational awareness in the pattern. OF COURSE, YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW THIS
SINCE YOU HAVE NOT FLOWN A REAL PLANE.

> That's the advantage of simulation. Mistakes in simulation cost
> nothing.

and you get no sense of accomplishment sitting in your lazy boy chair
either AFTER flying a REAL plane. After all, you are only SIMULATING what
is experienced better in a REAL plane.

Allen

[Marty Shapiro]

wrote in
ups.com:

>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
>> real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
>> necessary to abort a landing.
>
> In a few hundred hours flying out of Hanscom (primary GA field for
> Boston) I've had to go around maybe a half-dozen times, mostly for
> runway-lingering by the plane in front. Once the controller sequenced
> me a little too tightly. It is a very busy field on the weekends with a
> lot of training to keep things messy- 5th in line to take off or land
> is not unusual.
>
> In about a half-million airline miles, mostly continental US, I've had
> one go-around, on the Delta Shuttle into Boston, because the plane
> ahead had not cleared the runway in time. It was a CAVU day and I'd
> guess we were well inside the middle marker when they threw in the
> towel.
>

Go-around is not only due to runway obstruction. Sometimes weather
can cause it. If you can, see the the FAA safety film "The Day All Hell
Broke Loose" using audio recorded at Denver's old airport, Stapleton. It
was CAVU with a wind shear measured at over 100 knots. About 9 or 11 (I
forget the exact number) airliners in a row went missed.

Also, I once saw thunder showers as McCarran in Las Vegas cause go-
arounds on CAVU days. I remember one where the thunder shower was less
than 1/2 mile thick. You could see the sun on the runway both in front of
and behind what looked like a sheer see-through black veil and rain
bouncing off the runway where the veil was touching it. I saw several
airliners go-around, but one landed and briefly fish-tailed while rolling
through the shower during roll out.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
> real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
> necessary to abort a landing.

Once or twice a year, and it's usually caused by something the controllers
couldn't have anticipated.

My co-pilot did a go-around yesterday. We were 7 miles in trail of the MD-80
as we turned final. 5 miles of separation is normal, so he kept the speed up
at 210 knots. A Learjet in front of the MD-80 slowed to final approach speed
around glideslope intercept which is unusual. The MD-80 remarked that he
didn't know a Lear could go that slow. The tower replied that he didn't know
it either. The MD-80 had to slow sooner than normal. We slowed too, but
seperation was down to 4 miles, which is closer than normal but still
acceptable. We could only slow to 145 kias because reports of 15 knot
windshear on short final made the FO uncomfortable with doing a full-flap
landing. After the MD-80 crossed the threshhold, the tower cleared a Delta
MD-80 into position and to be ready to go. There was a long pause for a
reply. Then the MD-80 asked the tower to confirm the instructions. The tower
then cleared the Delta flight for an immediate take-off. There was another
pause before the MD-80 started to move. Then they transmitted on top of each
other as the MD-80 read back the instructions and the tower canceled the
take-off clearance. We were at 500' and the Delta flight was just starting
to roll. The spacing was too close for the FO's comfort and we did a
go-around.

D.

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> I've had to go around maybe ~10 times in the last 20 years....not counting a
> botched landing or two (or twenty :-). Most common case is a plane deciding to
> taxi all they way to the end of the runway instead of taking an early turnoff,
> but I've had two-three cases of planes pulling onto the runway when I'm on short
> final.

I've been lucky. I've yet to make a go-around "in anger" in 26 years.
I had one bozo cut ahead of me on final, but I let him know what he'd
done and how close I was and that we'd discuss it on the ground ... and
he decided to go around. :-)


Matt

[Jim Macklin]

I've ridden through several go-arounds on airline flights.
In one case I was a passenger going into [ DSM] on a DC-9.
The plane touched down just as a blizzard dumped a few tons
of snow, visibility drop to zero-zero and the PF/PIC decided
that he'd rather be in the air than on a runway blind at 140
knots.

I've made more than a few missed approaches when weather was
below minimums or I just could not find the airport. I have
made several go-arounds when a plane or car was on the
runway. I also have done many go-arounds as part of my
training and have set-up my students to do the same. A
go-around is safety valve, it is better than some accident.
Failing to go-around is a bigger "blot" on a pilots ego than
a properly and timely go-around.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Ron Wanttaja wrote:
| > I've had to go around maybe ~10 times in the last 20
years....not counting a
| > botched landing or two (or twenty :-). Most common case
is a plane deciding to
| > taxi all they way to the end of the runway instead of
taking an early turnoff,
| > but I've had two-three cases of planes pulling onto the
runway when I'm on short
| > final.
|
| I've been lucky. I've yet to make a go-around "in anger"
in 26 years.
| I had one bozo cut ahead of me on final, but I let him
know what he'd
| done and how close I was and that we'd discuss it on the
ground ... and
| he decided to go around. :-)
|
|
| Matt

[Tim Nunes]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > d&tm writes:
> >
> >> And of course for obvious reasons powered aircraft have to give
> >> way to gliders.
> >
> > I guess one can't really ask a glider to go around.
> >
> There's no rule that says you have to give way to gliders.
> If you are lower and on final you have the right of way.
> Of course, common sense says to give gliders and others
> restricted in ability to manouver the right of way.'
>
>
> In addition, while ATC may have rules to that don't allow
> them to permit it, there is no regulation from the pilot
> side that says you can't have two aircraft on the runway
> at the same time. You do have to be very careful however.

Yes there is a rule saying gliders have the right of way.
Yes there is a rule saying you can't have two airplanes on the same
runway at the same time. If the other plane isn't past the Runway Hold
Short line and another airplane lands, it is considered a runway
incursion.

The other day I was landing at a towered airport and thought I was
about to have to go around so I queried the guy in the tower about the
other plane still being on the runway...He said there was more than
3000" between us so it was ok. So ATC has more flexiblity.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:37:23 GMT, Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > I've had to go around maybe ~10 times in the last 20 years....not counting a
> > botched landing or two (or twenty :-). Most common case is a plane deciding to
> > taxi all they way to the end of the runway instead of taking an early turnoff,
> > but I've had two-three cases of planes pulling onto the runway when I'm on short
> > final.
>
> I've been lucky. I've yet to make a go-around "in anger" in 26 years.
> I had one bozo cut ahead of me on final, but I let him know what he'd
> done and how close I was and that we'd discuss it on the ground ... and
> he decided to go around. :-)

I had one case where I was #2 on final, and the guy in front of me decided to
start a 360...probably for spacing with the plane in front of HIM. Guess he
figured since he announced his intentions on the radio, it was safe...never mind
guys like me who were NORDO. I just gave him a friendly wave as he went by.
Don't know if he finished the 360.

Had a plane cross UNDER me when I was on final, and just a year or so ago,
someone do the same trick on base. The first case was back when I was NORDO,
but the second case I wasn't.

Ah, well. There's a flight school at Boeing Field (one of the busiest GA
airports) who brings their dual students to our (uncontrolled) field for
training. They shut their radios down so all the other calls don't interfere
with their instruction. I was on the Airport Board then, and we sent them a
nice letter asking them to monitor the frequency. They told us that, according
to the FARs, they didn't have to.

Ron Wanttaja

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:37:22 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:

>> I guess one can't really ask a glider to go around.
>>
>There's no rule that says you have to give way to gliders.

unpowered over powered?

>If you are lower and on final you have the right of way.
>Of course, common sense says to give gliders and others
>restricted in ability to manouver the right of way.'

#m
--
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm>

I Am Not A Terrorist <http://itsnotallbad.com/iamnotaterrorist/>

[Emily]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:37:22 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>>> I guess one can't really ask a glider to go around.
>>>
>> There's no rule that says you have to give way to gliders.
>
> unpowered over powered?

Sort of. It's who is the least maneuverable (at least in the US). See
(d)(2). Who is arguing that you don't? I'm guessing somehow that it's
not Ron.



§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an
aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight
rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an
aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this
section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give
way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless
well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all
other air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at
approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the
aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are
of different categories—

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other
head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to
the right.

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

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the
surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force
an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is
attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or
more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the
aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not
take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final
approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> Ah, well. There's a flight school at Boeing Field (one of the busiest GA
> airports) who brings their dual students to our (uncontrolled) field for
> training. They shut their radios down so all the other calls don't interfere
> with their instruction. I was on the Airport Board then, and we sent them a
> nice letter asking them to monitor the frequency. They told us that, according
> to the FARs, they didn't have to.

How many fatalities have they had thus far?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim Nunes writes:

> He said there was more than
> 3000" between us so it was ok. So ATC has more flexiblity.

Even so, 250 feet seems awfully close.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> writes:
>
>> Just do what you'd do in real life - slow down. When you find
>> yourself closely following traffic to the runway, you can create
>> more time between you and the guy in front by slowing down. Of
>> course, this may cause trouble for the guy behind you, but that's
>> his problem. You can also fly S-turns to create additional spacing.
>
> In the sim, the problem is usually that the plane in front of me
> lingers on the runway after landing. Then the controller tells me to
> go around. I'm not given the option of refusing (although sometimes I
> just ignore the controller and continue).
>
Talking about --how did you put it -- "...local pilots doing foolish
things...", this should be pretty close to the top of your list. And, it
will get you into an interesting but short discussion with the FAA, should
you survive that decision.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> In simulation, the simulated ATC seems to be very inefficient at
> spacing aircraft, because practically every fifth aircraft on landing
> is told to go around. In fact, if you are told to follow someone in
> for a landing, you can take for granted that he won't clear the runway
> in time and you'll be told to go around. It's tiresome and
> frustrating after spending a lot of effort to line things up nicely.
>
> How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
> real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
> necessary to abort a landing.
>
As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, you are responsible
for separation. Could it be that is the lesson MSFS is trying to teach
you? Perhaps this is a good opportunity to recognize that your attitude is
an impairment to safe flying, and a change could be beneficial.

Neil

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I've ridden through several go-arounds on airline flights.
> In one case I was a passenger going into [ DSM] on a DC-9.
> The plane touched down just as a blizzard dumped a few tons
> of snow, visibility drop to zero-zero and the PF/PIC decided
> that he'd rather be in the air than on a runway blind at 140
> knots.

Again, must be must luck on my part, but I've only had one airliner go
around in 23 years of business flying (probably over 1 MM miles). That
was on a flight into Pittsburgh many years ago. I never did learn the
reason for the maneuver, but the weather was pretty low and scuddy so
maybe a patch of scud got in the way at the last minute. We came back
around and landed uneventfully 10 minutes later.


Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Again, must be must luck on my part, but I've only had one airliner go
> around in 23 years of business flying (probably over 1 MM miles). That
> was on a flight into Pittsburgh many years ago. I never did learn the
> reason for the maneuver, but the weather was pretty low and scuddy so
> maybe a patch of scud got in the way at the last minute. We came back
> around and landed uneventfully 10 minutes later.

I had one as a passenger going into Plymouth England. They tried the approach
but the weather went downhill so they merely went to the next desitination
and we took the long Long LONG bus ride to Plymouth.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Talking about --how did you put it -- "...local pilots doing foolish
> things...", this should be pretty close to the top of your list. And, it
> will get you into an interesting but short discussion with the FAA, should
> you survive that decision.

Sure ... in a real aircraft. But in simulation it's okay (as long as
you realize that it's only acceptable in simulation). I figure the
ATC has way too many aircraft going around, so my revenge on the
simulator is simply to ignore the incompetent controller and continue.

Yesterday I took off into a 110 kt headwind blowing precisely down the
runway towards me. I left the ground within a few seconds, drifting
gently backwards, then forwards. Landing was easy, with a ground
speed of almost zero. That experiment would not be possible or
practical in real life.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, you are responsible
> for separation. Could it be that is the lesson MSFS is trying to teach
> you?

No. It sounds like a bug in the ATC simulation, if the simulation
does not match real life.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Talking about --how did you put it -- "...local pilots doing foolish
>> things...", this should be pretty close to the top of your list.
>> And, it will get you into an interesting but short discussion with
>> the FAA, should you survive that decision.
>
> Sure ... in a real aircraft. But in simulation it's okay (as long as
> you realize that it's only acceptable in simulation). I figure the
> ATC has way too many aircraft going around, so my revenge on the
> simulator is simply to ignore the incompetent controller and continue.
>
And, it's precisely that attitude that is the focus of the point I was
making. As PIC, you have no idea of the "competence" of the controller, or
the basis for instructions that you receive. Unless you are unable to
execute those instructions, you are expected to do so. If you are unable
to execute a go-around, you should have notified ATC about it well ahead
of time so that they could plan accordingly. So, you've made a number of
bad decisions based on bad assumptions and then executed a maneuver that
could get your license pulled, should you survive it. You are missing the
purpose of even MSFS in this case, and that's not too impressive.

Neil

[Newps]

Tim Nunes wrote:

>
> Yes there is a rule saying gliders have the right of way.

Uncontrolled fields.


> Yes there is a rule saying you can't have two airplanes on the same
> runway at the same time.

There's also a rule that says you can. Towered fields only. No such
rules for uncontrolled fields.



If the other plane isn't past the Runway Hold
> Short line and another airplane lands, it is considered a runway
> incursion.

You have that backwards. Controlled fields only.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> If you are unable
> to execute a go-around, you should have notified ATC about it well ahead
> of time so that they could plan accordingly.

The simulator does not give me the option of refusing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Newps" > wrote ...
>
> Tim Nunes wrote:
>> Yes there is a rule saying you can't have two airplanes on the same
>> runway at the same time.
>
> There's also a rule that says you can. Towered fields only. No such
> rules for uncontrolled fields.

OK, now I'm confused. There is a rule that I can't do a simultaneous "flight
of two" takeoff at an uncontrolled field ?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:25:48 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
> > Ah, well. There's a flight school at Boeing Field (one of the busiest GA
> > airports) who brings their dual students to our (uncontrolled) field for
> > training. They shut their radios down so all the other calls don't interfere
> > with their instruction. I was on the Airport Board then, and we sent them a
> > nice letter asking them to monitor the frequency. They told us that, according
> > to the FARs, they didn't have to.
>
> How many fatalities have they had thus far?

None at our field. Don't know about elsewhere.

Ron Wanttaja

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:37:23 GMT, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> Ah, well. There's a flight school at Boeing Field (one of the busiest GA
> airports) who brings their dual students to our (uncontrolled) field for
> training. They shut their radios down so all the other calls don't
> interfere
> with their instruction. I was on the Airport Board then, and we sent them
> a
> nice letter asking them to monitor the frequency. They told us that,
> according
> to the FARs, they didn't have to.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I am curious, as I did my flight training out of BFI, which non-towered
airport you are refering to... The "most popular" ones that I can think of
is either PWT or Auburn (S50)..

I know it was NOT my flight instructor that did that, as when we were within
about 10 miles of PWT, even if we were just doing steep turns the Kitsap
Peninsula and not going to enter the pattern for PWT, we would be listening
to the CTAF for PWT, just to kind of give us a "heads up" of people that may
be headed our way... :-)

Wade Hasbrouck
PP-ASEL
http://spaces.live.com/wadehas

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
>> Ah, well. There's a flight school at Boeing Field (one of the busiest GA
>> airports) who brings their dual students to our (uncontrolled) field for
>> training. They shut their radios down so all the other calls don't
>> interfere
>> with their instruction. I was on the Airport Board then, and we sent
>> them a
>> nice letter asking them to monitor the frequency. They told us that,
>> according
>> to the FARs, they didn't have to.
>
> How many fatalities have they had thus far?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I would probably hazard a guess and say none... as I don't recall seeing any
the news, and the only fatalities in the Puget Sound area that would come
close to this situation would be the mid-air that happened over Renton in
August 2005, and Renton is towered airport and the mid-air occurred during
the day when the tower was in operation (i.e. the Renton airspace is Class D
when the tower is in operation).

Wade Hasbrouck
PP-ASEL
http://spaces.live.com/wadehas

[Newps]

Mike Isaksen wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote ...
>
>>Tim Nunes wrote:
>>
>>>Yes there is a rule saying you can't have two airplanes on the same
>>>runway at the same time.
>>
>>There's also a rule that says you can. Towered fields only. No such
>>rules for uncontrolled fields.
>
>
> OK, now I'm confused. There is a rule that I can't do a simultaneous "flight
> of two" takeoff at an uncontrolled field ?

No. There's no rules at all for uncontrolled fields pertaining to how
many airplanes can be on the runway at the same time under any
circumstances.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> mike regish writes:
>>
>>> Might want to try slowing down when you're 2nd in line. Leave more space
>>> between you. Make the next guy go around.
>>
>> I tried it, but he was in a Cessna (152, or whatever comes with MSFS),
>> and I was in a Baron, and I was uneasy about trying to slow too much
>> when so close to the ground and so close to landing myself.
>
> You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I believe it
> is a 182). I don't know what kind of approaches you are making
> in the game, but you should hang further back in faster aircraft.
> If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the FAA on
> short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.

The default aircraft in MSFS is a Cessna 172... I think the model 172 is an
"SP", but not quite sure... It is one of the "fancy" fuel injected ones...
:-) They should put a 172M or 172N in there... No particular reason, other
than that is what I fly... I always sort of giggle when I see photos of the
panels of like like a 172 SP, as the instruments look sort of "plastic and
fake" too me. I haven't seen a 172 SP panel in person, just M and N model
panels :-)

This is one reason for needing to be able to control the airplane in slow
flight and knowng just how slow you can fly it.

If you are overtaking planes, you obviously should have waited longer before
making your downwind to base turn... The general rule I was taught for the
172 is, provided you haven't "creeped in on your downwind", once the
landing traffic passes your wing tip, you can begin your turn to final and
it works out just about right... some times I will wait just a little bit
longer just to give a little extra space.

It has also been my experience that planes in MSFS are unrealistically slow
in getting off the runway, as planes would "camp out" for a bit on the
runway before leaving it, resulting in a the tower giving a go-around. It
was really frustrating, as I know that is not typical in real life.

Too bad there isn't a Virtual FAA in MSFS that you put on those Virtual
Pilot's butts....

Wade Hasbrouck
PP-ASEL
http://spaces.live.com/wadehas

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I believe it
>> is a 182).
>
> Heck, I couldn't even see the Cessna until it was about a quarter-mile
> away. I spent a long time searching for it.
>
> I think one problem is that I was not flying the pattern correctly.
> The Cessna pulled in front of me. I'm still not clear on how long
> each leg of the pattern is supposed to be, although I'm very gradually
> getting better at flying a pattern without wandering all over the
> place.
>
>> I don't know what kind of approaches you are making
>> in the game, but you should hang further back in faster aircraft.
>
> Right now I'm just trying to fly a pattern correctly by myself. Once
> I master that, I'll try to worry more about other aircraft in the
> pattern.
>
>> If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the FAA on
>> short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.
>
> That's the advantage of simulation. Mistakes in simulation cost
> nothing.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I have found spotting traffic in MSFS is unrealistically hard to do, unless
you turn on the little red labels for the planes that they have... Much
easier to spot a Cessna on a 3 mile final to Renton from the Renton
downwind in real life than in MSFS. This proably because the traffic in
flight sim isn't more than a pixels wide until are basically on top of them.

Wade Hasbrouck
PP-ASEL
http://spaces.live.com/wadehas

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:55:33 -0700, "Wade Hasbrouck"
> wrote:

> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:37:23 GMT, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> > Ah, well. There's a flight school at Boeing Field (one of the busiest GA
> > airports) who brings their dual students to our (uncontrolled) field for
> > training. They shut their radios down so all the other calls don't
> > interfere
> > with their instruction. I was on the Airport Board then, and we sent them
> > a
> > nice letter asking them to monitor the frequency. They told us that,
> > according
> > to the FARs, they didn't have to.
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> I am curious, as I did my flight training out of BFI, which non-towered
> airport you are refering to... The "most popular" ones that I can think of
> is either PWT or Auburn (S50).

Auburn it is...only a few minutes' flight south from both Boeing Field and
Renton. Gets fun, there, on the weekends. Was flying touch-and-goes there one
Saturday with ten other planes in the pattern. Don't know how busy the CTAF
was, since that was in my NORDO days. Betcha they were talking about me,
though. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:55:33 -0700, "Wade Hasbrouck"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:37:23 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Ah, well. There's a flight school at Boeing Field (one of the busiest
>> > GA
>> > airports) who brings their dual students to our (uncontrolled) field
>> > for
>> > training. They shut their radios down so all the other calls don't
>> > interfere
>> > with their instruction. I was on the Airport Board then, and we sent
>> > them
>> > a
>> > nice letter asking them to monitor the frequency. They told us that,
>> > according
>> > to the FARs, they didn't have to.
>> >
>> > Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> I am curious, as I did my flight training out of BFI, which non-towered
>> airport you are refering to... The "most popular" ones that I can think
>> of
>> is either PWT or Auburn (S50).
>
> Auburn it is...only a few minutes' flight south from both Boeing Field and
> Renton. Gets fun, there, on the weekends. Was flying touch-and-goes
> there one
> Saturday with ten other planes in the pattern. Don't know how busy the
> CTAF
> was, since that was in my NORDO days. Betcha they were talking about me,
> though. :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Did my first night landings at Auburn... :-) Yeah, when leaving Renton I
will usually hear the controller advising pilots that are going to Auburn
how many planes are in the pattern there... :-) It is usually quite a few.
:-) We never went down there much... My instructor would remind me
"Remember fly the VASI, otherwise you will hit the Dairy Queen sign at
Auburn... :-)" Usually just fly over it at about 1500' or so and use it as
reporting point for inital contact to RNT or BFI.

PWT gets pretty busy too... had some guy cut in front of me on final
there... :-) I was following the guy in front of me, heard him call his
base turn, saw him turn, heard him call his turn to final turn, saw him
turn... and was following him... as I turned final, I heard a guy behind me
call his base turn, while on final I heard him call his turn to final, and
while looking around thought "well, he must be behind me..." and all of a
sudden about 100' in front of me and about 50 - 100' above me was a 172 :-)
I then advised on the CTAF "Skyhawk that just turned final... you have
another Skyhawk underneath you... ON FINAL!", Watched him for a couple
seconds as started to strategize "What should I do?" (student at the time
practicing landings by myself), and if he didn't do anything I was going to
go-around left of the runway... Couldn't go around on the right as there are
skydivers over there now (1/4 west of the airport)... but pretty soon I see
flaps starting to go up and he announces he is doing a go-around... :-)
Stopped and had lunch after that. :-)

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in message
...
> If you are overtaking planes, you obviously should have waited longer
> before making your downwind to base turn... The general rule I was taught
> for the 172 is, provided you haven't "creeped in on your downwind", once
> the landing traffic passes your wing tip, you can begin your turn to final
> and it works out just about right... some times I will wait just a little
> bit longer just to give a little extra space.
>

One SMALL Correction that I just noticed.... ARRGGHHH my fingers don't
always type what I want, as I am "editor type" when it comes to e-mail and
news postings (i.e. will write something, not like the wording or someting
and edit/wirte it differently...) :-)

The "general rule" sentence in the paragraph above should be:

"The general rule I was taught for the 172 is, provided you haven't 'creeped
in on your downwind', once the landing traffice passes your wing tip, you
can begin your turn to BASE, and it works out just about right..."

Kind of hard to see landing traffic pass your wingtip while ON base, and if
you did, that would probably be a big indication that you just overshot your
turn to final... :-)

Sorry about the typo... :-)

[Roy Smith]

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote:
> "The general rule I was taught for the 172 is, provided you haven't 'creeped
> in on your downwind', once the landing traffice passes your wing tip, you
> can begin your turn to BASE, and it works out just about right..."

That's a pretty good rule of thumb when the two aircraft are flying at
similar speeds. It doesn't work when (for example), you're a 172 and the
guy on final is a Cub going 10 or 20 kts slower than you.

On the other hand, if you're a spam can mixing it up with jet traffic,
there's no reason you can't turn base long before your traffic has crossed
your wingtip. If you're doing 80 kts on base, and he's doing 130 on final,
there's no way you're going to catch him.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote:
>> "The general rule I was taught for the 172 is, provided you haven't
>> 'creeped
>> in on your downwind', once the landing traffice passes your wing tip, you
>> can begin your turn to BASE, and it works out just about right..."
>
> That's a pretty good rule of thumb when the two aircraft are flying at
> similar speeds. It doesn't work when (for example), you're a 172 and the
> guy on final is a Cub going 10 or 20 kts slower than you.
>
> On the other hand, if you're a spam can mixing it up with jet traffic,
> there's no reason you can't turn base long before your traffic has crossed
> your wingtip. If you're doing 80 kts on base, and he's doing 130 on
> final,
> there's no way you're going to catch him.

Yes, I will admit, you do need to be cognisant (sp?) of the types of
aircraft are in the pattern, and adjust accordingly, i.e. if you are a 172
and cub is front of you, yes, I would wait a little longer before turning...

I am usually about 70 kts on base, and then about 65kts on final.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> None at our field. Don't know about elsewhere.

Speaking of Boeing field, I assumed it was a company field for Boeing.
Isn't it? What kind of traffic does it have? It seems oddly placed
so close to KSEA.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

Wade Hasbrouck wrote:

> PWT gets pretty busy too... had some guy cut in front of me on final
> there... :-) I was following the guy in front of me, heard him call
> his base turn, saw him turn, heard him call his turn to final turn, saw
> him turn... and was following him... as I turned final, I heard a guy
> behind me call his base turn, while on final I heard him call his turn
> to final, and while looking around thought "well, he must be behind
> me..." and all of a sudden about 100' in front of me and about 50 - 100'
> above me was a 172 :-) I then advised on the CTAF "Skyhawk that just
> turned final... you have another Skyhawk underneath you... ON FINAL!",
> Watched him for a couple seconds as started to strategize "What should I
> do?" (student at the time practicing landings by myself), and if he
> didn't do anything I was going to go-around left of the runway...
> Couldn't go around on the right as there are skydivers over there now
> (1/4 west of the airport)... but pretty soon I see flaps starting to go
> up and he announces he is doing a go-around... :-) Stopped and had
> lunch after that. :-)

Your smiley key is sticking...

Matt

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in message
...
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote:
>>> "The general rule I was taught for the 172 is, provided you haven't
>>> 'creeped
>>> in on your downwind', once the landing traffice passes your wing tip,
>>> you
>>> can begin your turn to BASE, and it works out just about right..."
>>
>> That's a pretty good rule of thumb when the two aircraft are flying at
>> similar speeds. It doesn't work when (for example), you're a 172 and the
>> guy on final is a Cub going 10 or 20 kts slower than you.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you're a spam can mixing it up with jet traffic,
>> there's no reason you can't turn base long before your traffic has
>> crossed
>> your wingtip. If you're doing 80 kts on base, and he's doing 130 on
>> final,
>> there's no way you're going to catch him.
>
> Yes, I will admit, you do need to be cognisant (sp?) of the types of
> aircraft are in the pattern, and adjust accordingly, i.e. if you are a
> 172 and cub is front of you, yes, I would wait a little longer before
> turning...
>
> I am usually about 70 kts on base, and then about 65kts on final.

Other thing I just realized... If I am a 172 with jet traffic (not uncommon
at places like Boeing Field), and following the jet... Yes, I don't need to
worry about catching him, but do need to be very aware of wake turbulence,
and fly final/turn final above his path and touch down past his touch down
point, or possibly ask the controller for a different runway or "wait" (a
360 or something)... I haven't had to follow a jet yet... Have been in the
other position, where I was landing with Citation right behind me. :-) But
do realize there are aircraft (other than jets) that could in the pattern
that are faster than me...

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> I have found spotting traffic in MSFS is unrealistically hard to do, unless
> you turn on the little red labels for the planes that they have ...

I'm pleased to hear that, as I manage to spot only about one aircraft
in ten when I'm advised of traffic. Even turning in every which way
to look for it doesn't help, and if I find it it rarely seems to be
where ATC told me it would be (four o'clock could be anywhere from
three to nine).

> Much easier to spot a Cessna on a 3 mile final to Renton from the Renton
> downwind in real life than in MSFS. This proably because the traffic in
> flight sim isn't more than a pixels wide until are basically on top of them.

It helps to run at 1600x1200, but it's still hard to make out the
shape of the aircraft until it's quite near. I'm not sure what
purpose seeing traffic serves in MSFS, anyway, since the simulator
doesn't simulate much else having to do with traffic and I have yet to
see any real conflicts.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> If you are overtaking planes, you obviously should have waited longer before
> making your downwind to base turn... The general rule I was taught for the
> 172 is, provided you haven't "creeped in on your downwind", once the
> landing traffic passes your wing tip, you can begin your turn to final and
> it works out just about right... some times I will wait just a little bit
> longer just to give a little extra space.

Hmm ... so I go crosswind, downwind, base, final, right? If I'm on
the downwind leg, then wouldn't I be turning to base before final?
I'm having trouble visualizing this.

If I hear "make right downwind," I take this to mean (based on what
I've read) that I should join the downwind leg at some point at a
45-degree angle, and that the pattern is one in which all turns are
right turns (and thus is to the right of the runway, as seen by
someone coming straight in).

> It has also been my experience that planes in MSFS are unrealistically slow
> in getting off the runway, as planes would "camp out" for a bit on the
> runway before leaving it, resulting in a the tower giving a go-around. It
> was really frustrating, as I know that is not typical in real life.

Good. I try to get off the runway quickly myself.

> Too bad there isn't a Virtual FAA in MSFS that you put on those Virtual
> Pilot's butts....

They all sound and behave the same. As it is, there's hardly every
anyone in the pattern, except maybe for one other aircraft, so one
can't easily simulate flying a busy pattern. Then again, given my
current lack of skill in flying patterns, there might be bodies and
aircraft chunks flying everywhere if I had to negotiate a pattern with
other aircraft in it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> "The general rule I was taught for the 172 is, provided you haven't 'creeped
> in on your downwind', once the landing traffice passes your wing tip, you
> can begin your turn to BASE, and it works out just about right..."

Ah, now I am far less confused!

Now, how are you looking at the traffic when you try to check if it
has passed your wingtip?

> Kind of hard to see landing traffic pass your wingtip while ON base, and if
> you did, that would probably be a big indication that you just overshot your
> turn to final... :-)

I'm very good at undershooting and overshooting final (albeit in a
flip-of-the-coin sort of way). I only have difficulty aligning with
the runway.

And for some reason, I always seem to drift slightly left just as I'm
coming up on decision height. I don't know what does this. The
engines are usually near idle, so it doesn't seem like it'd be a
sudden surge of torque or anything. And it seems improbable that the
surface winds are _always_ blowing to the left.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roy Smith writes:

> That's a pretty good rule of thumb when the two aircraft are flying at
> similar speeds. It doesn't work when (for example), you're a 172 and the
> guy on final is a Cub going 10 or 20 kts slower than you.

Does this mean that you have to know how fast each aircraft can or
usually does go, or can you easily tell how fast it is moving just by
watching it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Spam Magnet]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:
>Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
>
>> PWT gets pretty busy too... had some guy cut in front of me on final
>> there... :-) I was following the guy in front of me, heard him call
>> his base turn, saw him turn, heard him call his turn to final turn, saw
>> him turn... and was following him... as I turned final, I heard a guy
>> behind me call his base turn, while on final I heard him call his turn
>> to final, and while looking around thought "well, he must be behind
>> me..." and all of a sudden about 100' in front of me and about 50 - 100'
>> above me was a 172 :-) I then advised on the CTAF "Skyhawk that just
>> turned final... you have another Skyhawk underneath you... ON FINAL!",
>> Watched him for a couple seconds as started to strategize "What should I
>> do?" (student at the time practicing landings by myself), and if he
>> didn't do anything I was going to go-around left of the runway...
>> Couldn't go around on the right as there are skydivers over there now
>> (1/4 west of the airport)... but pretty soon I see flaps starting to go
>> up and he announces he is doing a go-around... :-) Stopped and had
>> lunch after that. :-)
>
>Your smiley key is sticking...
>

As are both of your ... keys.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> If you are unable
>> to execute a go-around, you should have notified ATC about it well
>> ahead of time so that they could plan accordingly.
>
> The simulator does not give me the option of refusing.
>
It also doesn't make the plane unable to execute the instruction. Ergo,
you should have gone around.

Neil

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>
>> None at our field. Don't know about elsewhere.
>
> Speaking of Boeing field, I assumed it was a company field for Boeing.
> Isn't it? What kind of traffic does it have? It seems oddly placed
> so close to KSEA.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

It is technically "King County International Airport/Boeing Field" It is
owned and operated by King County. Here is the website for the airport, they
nice little video about the aiport there http://www.metrokc.gov/airport/

It was originally named Boeing Field in honor of William P. Boeing, founder
of The Boeing Company, and is still refered to by that name, even though
officially its name is "King County International Airport". Boeing still
does a lot of servicing, delivery and testing at Boeing. Boeing builds 737s
at the Renton Municipal Airport, and then they are flown, usually unpainted
to either Paine Field or Boeing Field to painted if needed and delivered.
When airlines need planes serviced by Boeing they are usually taken to
Boeing Field.

I believe Paine Field (PAE) in Everette is the same as Boeing Field, in that
it is owned by the county and Boeing has space at the airport. Boeing
builds 747, 767, 777, and eventualy the 787 at Paine Field.

Boeing Field was built way before Sea-Tac (a.k.a KSEA, or "Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport"). Yes Sea-Tac is quite close, and that is what makes
Boeing Field an interesting place to learn to fly from, as you have to have
a good sense of where you are at all times (basically to avoid the Class B),
and be somewhat cautious as occaisonally while in the downwind for 13R,
pattern altitude is 800' and you can occaisionally catch wake turbulence for
jets going into Sea-Tac, and that will "wake you up" (no pun intended).

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Spam Magnet" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
>>
>>> PWT gets pretty busy too... had some guy cut in front of me on final
>>> there... :-) I was following the guy in front of me, heard him call
>>> his base turn, saw him turn, heard him call his turn to final turn, saw
>>> him turn... and was following him... as I turned final, I heard a guy
>>> behind me call his base turn, while on final I heard him call his turn
>>> to final, and while looking around thought "well, he must be behind
>>> me..." and all of a sudden about 100' in front of me and about 50 - 100'
>>> above me was a 172 :-) I then advised on the CTAF "Skyhawk that just
>>> turned final... you have another Skyhawk underneath you... ON FINAL!",
>>> Watched him for a couple seconds as started to strategize "What should I
>>> do?" (student at the time practicing landings by myself), and if he
>>> didn't do anything I was going to go-around left of the runway...
>>> Couldn't go around on the right as there are skydivers over there now
>>> (1/4 west of the airport)... but pretty soon I see flaps starting to go
>>> up and he announces he is doing a go-around... :-) Stopped and had
>>> lunch after that. :-)
>>
>>Your smiley key is sticking...
>>
>
> As are both of your ... keys.
>

I know.... Bad habits. :-)

[Wade Hasbrouck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mxsmanic" >
> Now, how are you looking at the traffic when you try to check if it
> has passed your wingtip?

You look out the window. The side window is most useful for this. Pretty
obvious. He will be lower than you and in a high wing aircraft like the 172
you can see the traffic and the wing at the same time. Haven't flown a low
wing, but would imagine you would do something similar like, "watch the
traffic, and the wing will 'hide' the traffic, and then when the traffic is
past your wingtip it the traffic will be visible again...

> And for some reason, I always seem to drift slightly left just as I'm
> coming up on decision height. I don't know what does this. The
> engines are usually near idle, so it doesn't seem like it'd be a
> sudden surge of torque or anything. And it seems improbable that the
> surface winds are _always_ blowing to the left.

It has been several months since I messed around with Flight Sim, but I
haven't ever really noticed this, so I can't really comment on what is going
on. The winds due depend on if you are using the "real weather" or not...
Can't comment on anything more than 172.

[Jim Macklin]

anywhere

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the
operation of an aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of
whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight
rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained
by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid
other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another
aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that
aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless
well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the
right-of-way over all other air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except
head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right
has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different
categories-

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category
of aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or
rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered
parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or
rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has
the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each
other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft
shall alter course to the right.

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

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or
while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in
flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall
not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the
runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to
make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more
aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of
landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the
right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule
to cut in front of another which is on final approach to
land or to overtake that aircraft.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by
Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]


Browse Previous | Browse Next

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Tim Nunes wrote:
|
| >
| > Yes there is a rule saying gliders have the right of
way.
|
| Uncontrolled fields.
|
|
| > Yes there is a rule saying you can't have two airplanes
on the same
| > runway at the same time.
|
| There's also a rule that says you can. Towered fields
only. No such
| rules for uncontrolled fields.
|
|
|
| If the other plane isn't past the Runway Hold
| > Short line and another airplane lands, it is considered
a runway
| > incursion.
|
| You have that backwards. Controlled fields only.
|

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith writes:
>
>> That's a pretty good rule of thumb when the two aircraft are flying at
>> similar speeds. It doesn't work when (for example), you're a 172 and the
>> guy on final is a Cub going 10 or 20 kts slower than you.
>
> Does this mean that you have to know how fast each aircraft can or
> usually does go, or can you easily tell how fast it is moving just by
> watching it?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I think it is pretty common knowledge that if an airplane looks similar to
your airplane, it is probably going the same speed as you, if it is "sleeker
and sexier" than yours, it is probably going faster, if is not as "sleek and
sexy" probably slower... If it is bigger, it probably goes faster, if it is
smaller, probably goes slower. If it has more engines than you, probably
faster, less would be slower. If it burns high grade Kerosene (Jet A) and
you are buring 100LL, it is probably faster, reverse this for "slower".

But this isn't always true and requires judgement and knowledge on the
pilot's part. i.e. While a 150 and a 172 look similar (172 is slightly
"sexier" and a little "sleeker" and is bigger and generally flys a little
faster than the 150) it is possible to fly a 172 at 59 kts on final, while
flying a 150 at 75 knots on final... so if the 150 is behind the 172, the
150 pilot needs to realize he is going faster than the 172 and slow down
(not hard in a 150), which you judge by looking out the window and seeing if
the airplane is getting bigger or smaller (only works if you are going in
the same direction)

Being a 172 "driver", I know that anything that has more than one engine, or
a jet engine is going to be faster than me, also know most low wing aircraft
are going be faster than me (exceptions could be some Diamonds, some
experimentals, some Pipers like the Tomahawk, but these are typically
smaller than a 172). Most high wing aircraft are going to be right around
my speed range (182s are faster, 150s a little slower, taildraggers are
probably going to be slower because of their landing characteristics, but I
don't know much about taildraggers)

[Timmay]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > I think one problem is that I was not flying the pattern correctly.
> > The Cessna pulled in front of me. I'm still not clear on how long
> > each leg of the pattern is supposed to be, although I'm very gradually
> > getting better at flying a pattern without wandering all over the
> > place.
>
> I think the problem is that you are not in a REAL PLANE. You would be less
> prone to wandering when you can see the world in three dimension rather
> then the flat screen of a monitor.
>
> Oh gee, there is a pilot side window, a co-pilot / passenger window and
> even in some planes a rear window you can quickly glance out to assess your
> situational awareness in the pattern. OF COURSE, YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW THIS
> SINCE YOU HAVE NOT FLOWN A REAL PLANE.
>
> > That's the advantage of simulation. Mistakes in simulation cost
> > nothing.
>
> and you get no sense of accomplishment sitting in your lazy boy chair
> either AFTER flying a REAL plane. After all, you are only SIMULATING what
> is experienced better in a REAL plane.
>
> Allen

You, sir, are a disgrace to aviation as a hobby. The fact that Mxsmanic
is asking questions to real-life pilots concerning real-life situations
while using a simulator demonstrates how much dedication he has, and he
would be an asset to aviation if he were to ever decide to move on to
take some lessons, but it's because of people like you that will likely
turn him away with your "holier than thou" outlook on those who aren't
a part of the hobby/industry. You're right, simulators fall dreadfully
short in depicting how things happen in real-life, but that's not
Mxsmanic's fault, and I frown upon anyone tearing apart somebody else
for seeking advice from a reliable source.

You're on notice.

[Timmay]

Of course, when on forums you DO have your occasional troll lurking
around as well.



Timmay wrote:
> A Lieberma wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > I think one problem is that I was not flying the pattern correctly.
> > > The Cessna pulled in front of me. I'm still not clear on how long
> > > each leg of the pattern is supposed to be, although I'm very gradually
> > > getting better at flying a pattern without wandering all over the
> > > place.
> >
> > I think the problem is that you are not in a REAL PLANE. You would be less
> > prone to wandering when you can see the world in three dimension rather
> > then the flat screen of a monitor.
> >
> > Oh gee, there is a pilot side window, a co-pilot / passenger window and
> > even in some planes a rear window you can quickly glance out to assess your
> > situational awareness in the pattern. OF COURSE, YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW THIS
> > SINCE YOU HAVE NOT FLOWN A REAL PLANE.
> >
> > > That's the advantage of simulation. Mistakes in simulation cost
> > > nothing.
> >
> > and you get no sense of accomplishment sitting in your lazy boy chair
> > either AFTER flying a REAL plane. After all, you are only SIMULATING what
> > is experienced better in a REAL plane.
> >
> > Allen
>
> You, sir, are a disgrace to aviation as a hobby. The fact that Mxsmanic
> is asking questions to real-life pilots concerning real-life situations
> while using a simulator demonstrates how much dedication he has, and he
> would be an asset to aviation if he were to ever decide to move on to
> take some lessons, but it's because of people like you that will likely
> turn him away with your "holier than thou" outlook on those who aren't
> a part of the hobby/industry. You're right, simulators fall dreadfully
> short in depicting how things happen in real-life, but that's not
> Mxsmanic's fault, and I frown upon anyone tearing apart somebody else
> for seeking advice from a reliable source.
>
> You're on notice.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> It also doesn't make the plane unable to execute the instruction. Ergo,
> you should have gone around.

Instructions are flexible in simulation. If I followed all
instructions slavishly, I'd occasionally be stuck for eternity on the
ramp because the simulator doesn't give me the option of asking to
taxi and take off.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> Being a 172 "driver", I know that anything that has more than one engine, or
> a jet engine is going to be faster than me, also know most low wing aircraft
> are going be faster than me (exceptions could be some Diamonds, some
> experimentals, some Pipers like the Tomahawk, but these are typically
> smaller than a 172). Most high wing aircraft are going to be right around
> my speed range (182s are faster, 150s a little slower, taildraggers are
> probably going to be slower because of their landing characteristics, but I
> don't know much about taildraggers)

Are you ever instructed to follow heavy aircraft on final? If so, how
do you avoid things like wake turbulence?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> It has been several months since I messed around with Flight Sim, but I
> haven't ever really noticed this, so I can't really comment on what is going
> on. The winds due depend on if you are using the "real weather" or not...
> Can't comment on anything more than 172.

I think the sim is accurately simulating something, I just don't know
what it is. Maybe I just have more of a tendency to overshoot than to
undershoot. Still, it seems that I drift sometimes even after I am
perfectly aligned.

For what it's worth, I actually did a go-around and flew the pattern
again this evening (or afternoon, in the simulator world), while
landing at KPHX. I managed to hold altitude relatively well (if I
understand correctly, 1000' AGL is the usual position). Turns were
okay. No help from autopilot. The weather was very nice, though,
which made things easier. And I know KPHX and Phoenix very well.
When I saw three aircraft approaching as I turned to base I knew that
ATC was going to shaft me again, but I figured I could use the
practice.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> In simulation, the simulated ATC seems to be very inefficient at
> spacing aircraft, because practically every fifth aircraft on landing
> is told to go around. In fact, if you are told to follow someone in
> for a landing, you can take for granted that he won't clear the runway
> in time and you'll be told to go around. It's tiresome and
> frustrating after spending a lot of effort to line things up nicely.
>
> How often does this happen in real life? I should think and hope that
> real controllers can space aircraft better so that it's rarely
> necessary to abort a landing.
>

This is because the AI in MSFS isn't smart enough to get the AI operated
aircraft of the runway in a timely manner.

[Ron Natalie]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote in
> :
>
>> You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I believe it
>> is a 182). I don't know what kind of approaches you are making
>> in the game, but you should hang further back in faster aircraft.
>> If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the FAA on
>> short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.
>
> Dang Ron,
>
> Didn't you know that the lower plane has the right of way in REAL life and
> you should give way to a plane passing under you on final
>
The rules say overtaking aircraft must give the right of way.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>
>> Being a 172 "driver", I know that anything that has more than one engine,
>> or
>> a jet engine is going to be faster than me, also know most low wing
>> aircraft
>> are going be faster than me (exceptions could be some Diamonds, some
>> experimentals, some Pipers like the Tomahawk, but these are typically
>> smaller than a 172). Most high wing aircraft are going to be right
>> around
>> my speed range (182s are faster, 150s a little slower, taildraggers are
>> probably going to be slower because of their landing characteristics, but
>> I
>> don't know much about taildraggers)
>
> Are you ever instructed to follow heavy aircraft on final? If so, how
> do you avoid things like wake turbulence?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sort of already answered that in a different part of the thread... I have
not yet been put behind a heavier aircraft yet... However the general
practice is that you want to stay above the flight path of the heavier
aircraft and touchdown past the heavier aircraft's touchdown point. Taking
off after a heavier aircraft you want to stay above their flight path and
rotate before the point where they rotated.

However, as PIC you have the authority to decline an ATC request if you
think it would be unsafe or would not feel comfortable doing it, as it is
the PIC that is flying the aircraft, not ATC (although some controllers act
like they are flying the plane). If I was at Boeing Field, and landing on
13R, and a 777 landed while I was in the downwind, and given "Cessna xxxx,
Cleared to Land 13R, caution wake turbulence...", you can bet I would
decline that and probably ask to do some 360s or move to the short runway
(provided the wind isn't blowing the turbulence on to the other runway), or
a "go-around" (probably a kind of high go-around), or some other option.
Just because I am "cleared to land" doesn't mean I have to land, if I think
it is unsafe to do so, I have the right as PIC to decline it because I think
it is unsafe or not comfortable doing it, and in this case the controller
would be more than understanding, but most controllers are smart enough to
avoid putting you in that position.

I have been in the position of taking off after a heavier aircraft, and
recieved "Cleared to take off, caution wake turbulence, 767 departed 1
minute ago.", which just advised the controller that I would like to wait.
Was also cleared to take off to "take off no delay" at Renton because of
inbound lear jet, and apparently the contoller expected me to put full
throttle to taxi from the hold short line to the runway and I fumbled the
tail number (first time in the plane) and I got a gruff "Cessna xxxx I said
no delay!!!!!", which earned him a "Renton Tower, Cessna xxxx will wait for
the lear..." and sat at the hold short line, as I couldn't see where this
lear was, controllers attitude was not appropriate, and I didn't feel
comfortable doing and just pulled the throttle back and told them "I'll
wait", as I am flying the plane not him

I was asked to make a short aproach at Renton by the controller, and I
wasn't comfortable doing so at the time and just replied with "Cessna xxxx,
unable to do a short approach..." which got me "Cessna xxxx, do a right 360
for spacing", but as PIC I have the right to decline an ATC instruction if I
don't think it is safe. I was on a "close in base" (at the request of the
controller) at Renton once, and they cleared a plane to take off just as I
was to start my turn to a "short final", I wasn't comfortable with the way
things were looking, and told the controller "Renton Tower, Cessna xxxx,
doing a right 270 for spacing...", and it was like he didn't realize what
was about to transpire and was like "Yeah... Cessna xxxx, right 270 for
spacing..."

[Ron Natalie]

Dan wrote:
> Right.. for example at OSH where they are landing 3 planes at a time on
> the same runway.
>
>
Oshkosh gets a special exemption to allow that. Normally,
there are stricter rules that the controllers must follow.
They have to plan (with little exception) that one aircraft
can not touch down until the other is clear.

[Roy Smith]

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote:
> Taking off after a heavier aircraft you want to stay above their flight
> path and rotate before the point where they rotated.

That's the theory. In practice, I know of very few spam cans that can
outclimb a jet. There's no way you're going to stay above their flight
path if you follow their ground track.

The only way to avoid the wake of a departing jet is a quick turn away from
their track. It helps to be familiar with the IFR departure procedure, so
you can predict which way they'll turn. At HPN, I'll just ask for an
immediate turnout for wake avoidance. I've never had it turned down, and
I'm in my turn before I reach 100 AGL.

[Emily]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> A Lieberma wrote:
>> Ron Natalie > wrote in
>> :
>>> You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I believe it
>>> is a 182). I don't know what kind of approaches you are making
>>> in the game, but you should hang further back in faster aircraft.
>>> If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the FAA on
>>> short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.
>>
>> Dang Ron,
>>
>> Didn't you know that the lower plane has the right of way in REAL life
>> and you should give way to a plane passing under you on final
> The rules say overtaking aircraft must give the right of way.

Sometimes the overtaking aircraft can't. Sorry, but when I'm on final
in some planes I can't slow down for the jerk in front of me doing 50 knots.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> anywhere
>
> § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
> (a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the
> operation of an aircraft on water.
>
>

Right of way rules do not apply at tower controlled fields.

[Emily]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> anywhere
>>
>> § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
>> (a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of
>> an aircraft on water.
>>
>>
>
> Right of way rules do not apply at tower controlled fields.

Cite?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> > Right.. for example at OSH where they are landing 3 planes at a time on
> > the same runway.
> >
> >
> Oshkosh gets a special exemption to allow that. Normally,
> there are stricter rules that the controllers must follow.
> They have to plan (with little exception) that one aircraft
> can not touch down until the other is clear.

At HPN, sometimes they play a little game. If the spacing is tight, the
controller will ask the first plane, "Are you clear of the runway?". If
the pilot has any savvy at all, he'll reply that he is, regardless of
whether he's really over the hold short line or not. The tower will then
immediately give me my landing clearance.

Everybody wins. I don't get sent around and controller has "proof" on the
recording that he didn't break any rules.

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:



> They have to plan (with little exception) that one aircraft
> can not touch down until the other is clear.

Not even close to being correct. In fact most operations at GA airports
allow two aircraft on the runway. The general rule is if either
aircraft is a jet or weighs more than 12,500 then only one on the runway.

[Emily]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>
>
>> They have to plan (with little exception) that one aircraft
>> can not touch down until the other is clear.
>
> Not even close to being correct. In fact most operations at GA airports
> allow two aircraft on the runway. The general rule is if either
> aircraft is a jet or weighs more than 12,500 then only one on the runway.

Yep. And that's something that needs to be taught more, because it
shocked me when it first happened to me. My instructor never told me
anything about it,and very few people I talked to knew it was legal.

[Ron Natalie]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:37:22 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>>> I guess one can't really ask a glider to go around.
>>>
>> There's no rule that says you have to give way to gliders.
>
> unpowered over powered?
>
Either way. The only time the class preference occurs
is when coverging at other than headon (or nearly so).
Other than that the other rules apply. On approach,
the aircraft on final has the right of way. This is
not a problem for gliders, generally. While they
can't go around, they will yield to powered aircraft
already on final and pull in behind them. This is
almost never an issue because gliders are flying a
lot slower.

[Ron Natalie]

Emily wrote:

>
> Sometimes the overtaking aircraft can't. Sorry, but when I'm on final
> in some planes I can't slow down for the jerk in front of me doing 50
> knots.

Then it's required that you give way in some other fashion. The
jerk doing 50 knots on final may be operating as fast as prudently
safe. Just as Mister MixedPickles in his computer game, it is
imcumbant on you to manouver to give the right of way to those
how have it.

[Emily]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>
>>
>> Sometimes the overtaking aircraft can't. Sorry, but when I'm on final
>> in some planes I can't slow down for the jerk in front of me doing 50
>> knots.
>
> Then it's required that you give way in some other fashion.

How, when tower expects me to stay on final? I'm not trying to be a
bitch, but I can't tell you how many times I'm going into a large
airport with someone in front of me out for his Sunday stroll. Class B
and C towers generally don't want a following aircraft breaking off an
approach because the aircraft in front is so slow.

[Emily]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:26:03 -0500, Emily
> > wrote:
>
>> Class B
>> and C towers generally don't want a following aircraft breaking off an
>> approach because the aircraft in front is so slow.
>
> Do you fly into weirdo B & C's that don't have radar? <G>

Sometimes I think so.

> Won't they tell you to "slow for spacing"? And if you can't, you
> answer "unable", and then THEY figure out what's the next step?

Well, I have been told to reduce speed. Unfortunately, sometimes I am
going so much faster than if I were to simply say "unable", I'd be in
the back of the next airplane. I know that I can deviate from ATC
instructions if I'm going to rear end someone, but I prefer to keep from
having to do that in the first place.

> I've been sent around or in a 360 at large airports because I wasn't
> approaching fast enough to not get run over by an airliner. Where are
> you flying where a Bravo or Charlie controller would let you run over
> a slow aircraft?

IND, MDW, and DAL come to mind as airports where I've almost run down
slower aircraft and tower just sat on their hands. Oh, and CVG, but IND
is definitely the worst offender.

[Robert Chambers]

Timmay wrote:

>
> You're on notice.
>

Ooooh!

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> If I hear "make right downwind," I take this to mean (based on what
> I've read) that I should join the downwind leg at some point at a
> 45-degree angle, and that the pattern is one in which all turns are
> right turns (and thus is to the right of the runway, as seen by
> someone coming straight in).

Right hand pattern = all turns are made to the right from the pilot's
perspective... take the "as seen by someone coming straight in" part out...
Right hand pattern is take off, followed by a right turn to crosswind,
follwed shortly by a right turn to downwind, followed by a right turn to
base, follwed by a right turn to final.

Standard pattern entry is a 45 to the downwind... However, when going into
places like Boeing Field, it depends on where you are coming from... i.e.
if you are arriving at Boeing Field from the south and they are landing to
the south, the real life controller will just have do a "zero degree entry"
to the downwind... if you are approaching from the NE (downtown Bellevue)
and they are landing to the south they will usually tell you "report Seward
Park" and at Seward park tell you "Cleared to land 13L" (short runway) and
you have to make about 135 degree right hand turn to enter the downwind.
The will occaisonally tell you "enter base for 13L" when coming from
Bellevue, but have gotten the "Seward Park" thing much more frequently. And
if you are approaching Boeing from the West, it is about a 90 degree entry
to the downwind and "close in" (over the river)

And then of course Flight Sim doesn't cover local VFR procedures like
"Mercer Departure" or "Vashon Departure", but that is kind of expected since
there are so many airports in the product and many of them are not official
FAA procedures i.e. try finding an FAA definition for "Vashon Departure" or
"Mercer Departure", but in real life if you ask for a "Vashon Departure" the
controller will clear you for and know exactly what you are talking about.

>> Too bad there isn't a Virtual FAA in MSFS that you put on those Virtual
>> Pilot's butts....
>
> They all sound and behave the same. As it is, there's hardly every
> anyone in the pattern, except maybe for one other aircraft, so one
> can't easily simulate flying a busy pattern. Then again, given my
> current lack of skill in flying patterns, there might be bodies and
> aircraft chunks flying everywhere if I had to negotiate a pattern with
> other aircraft in it.

Basic point of my comment was that the flight sim doesn't necessarily
represent real life accurately in this aspect and that it would be a "fun
feature" to have the FAA come down on the AI Pilots in flight sim, and that
it is not a really good tool if you are trying to familiarize yourself with
how things work at the real airport.

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> Emily wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes the overtaking aircraft can't. Sorry, but when I'm on
>>> final in some planes I can't slow down for the jerk in front of me
>>> doing 50 knots.
>>
>>
>> Then it's required that you give way in some other fashion.
>
>
> How, when tower expects me to stay on final? I'm not trying to be a
> bitch, but I can't tell you how many times I'm going into a large
> airport with someone in front of me out for his Sunday stroll. Class B
> and C towers generally don't want a following aircraft breaking off an
> approach because the aircraft in front is so slow.

Tell the tower you are unable to maintain separation due the speed of
the aircraft in front and request a 360. They'll either approve it or
give you an alternative.

Matt

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:06:23 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > Much easier to spot a Cessna on a 3 mile final to Renton from the Renton
> > downwind in real life than in MSFS. This proably because the traffic in
> > flight sim isn't more than a pixels wide until are basically on top of them.
>
> It helps to run at 1600x1200, but it's still hard to make out the
> shape of the aircraft until it's quite near. I'm not sure what
> purpose seeing traffic serves in MSFS, anyway, since the simulator
> doesn't simulate much else having to do with traffic and I have yet to
> see any real conflicts.

The actual size of an aircraft at 3 miles is probably smaller than the projected
size of the monitor's pixel. It's your predator instincts that help pick out
the airplane (e.g., "something's moving"), not the physical size of the dot.
The aircraft configuration isn't identifiable until it gets quite close, and not
by type until it gets even closer. Though I once ID'd a friend's airplane at
about three miles due to its color....

Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Barrow]

The vast majority of times I do, I probably don't HAVE TO.

[Matt Barrow]

"Timmay" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Allen
>
> You, sir, are a disgrace to aviation as a hobby. The fact that Mxsmanic
> is asking questions to real-life pilots concerning real-life situations
> while using a simulator demonstrates how much dedication he has,


His dedication is to MSFS, not flying.

Get a clue about him!

[Matt Barrow]

"Timmay" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Of course, when on forums you DO have your occasional troll lurking
> around as well.

Well, DUH!!!

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:06:23 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> > Much easier to spot a Cessna on a 3 mile final to Renton from the
>> > Renton
>> > downwind in real life than in MSFS. This proably because the traffic
>> > in
>> > flight sim isn't more than a pixels wide until are basically on top of
>> > them.
>>
>> It helps to run at 1600x1200, but it's still hard to make out the
>> shape of the aircraft until it's quite near. I'm not sure what
>> purpose seeing traffic serves in MSFS, anyway, since the simulator
>> doesn't simulate much else having to do with traffic and I have yet to
>> see any real conflicts.
>
> The actual size of an aircraft at 3 miles is probably smaller than the
> projected
> size of the monitor's pixel. It's your predator instincts that help pick
> out
> the airplane (e.g., "something's moving"), not the physical size of the
> dot.
> The aircraft configuration isn't identifiable until it gets quite close,
> and not
> by type until it gets even closer. Though I once ID'd a friend's airplane
> at
> about three miles due to its color....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

You are probably correct... I was just thinking of a recent instance of when
I was approaching RNT to land was given "Cleared to land #2 following Cessna
on 3 mile final, report the traffic in sight..." and probably didn't pick
him up until he was on about 1.5 - 2 mile final, which caused me to discover
a phrase that causes concern in passengers... Glanced around doing my CGUMPS
check, and then looked back out the windshield and said "Ok... Where did he
go???" My passenger later on told me that that phase "concerned" her, and
told her "Oh... I wasn't worried about hitting him. I just needed to know
where he was at so that I knew when to turn, and if I couldn't find him I
would have just asked the tower where he was..."

[Newps]

Emily wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>
>>> anywhere
>>>
>>> § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
>>> (a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of
>>> an aircraft on water.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right of way rules do not apply at tower controlled fields.
>
>
> Cite?

The tower and the approach control, if so equipped, make the sequence.
They both change the sequence for arrivals and departures solely at
their discretion as the operation warrants. Controllers are not taught
right of way rules. Why would they? By definition those rules are for
when there is no control.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote
>
> However, as PIC you have the authority to decline an ATC request if you think
> it would be unsafe or would not feel comfortable doing it, as it is the PIC
> that is flying the aircraft, not ATC

Although, if you say unable, you had better have a reasonable reason for saying
unable.

The ATC can have you fly back out to the podunk VOR for resequencing, or make
you wait while 15 planes take off before you get your turn to takeoff, or
anything else he so desires, if he wants to show his authority, if you get my
drift. <g>

That type of subject could start a whole new thread!

How many of you have been given unreasonable ( in your opinion) orders by ATC?
--
Jim in NC

[Emily]

Newps wrote:
<snip>
>>> Right of way rules do not apply at tower controlled fields.
>>
>>
>> Cite?
>
> The tower and the approach control, if so equipped, make the sequence.
> They both change the sequence for arrivals and departures solely at
> their discretion as the operation warrants. Controllers are not taught
> right of way rules. Why would they? By definition those rules are for
> when there is no control.

I was just wondering. That's something I didn't get from the regulation.

[Newps]

Emily wrote:


>>
>> Then it's required that you give way in some other fashion.
>
>
> How, when tower expects me to stay on final?



Tower will fix the problem and right of way rules are of no concern.
Just because I made you first doesn't mean you will necessarily stay
first. If that plan doesn't work you may be the one to go around if
that is the most efficient way to do things.

[Margy Natalie]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I believe it
>>is a 182). I don't know what kind of approaches you are making
>>in the game, but you should hang further back in faster aircraft.
>>If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the FAA on
>>short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.
>
>
> Dang Ron,
>
> Didn't you know that the lower plane has the right of way in REAL life and
> you should give way to a plane passing under you on final
>
> *tongue in cheek*.
>
> Allen
My 1st, supervised, student solo a twin cut me off on short final by
passing below me. I, stupid student, thought I had done something
wrong, until on the ground when my instructor starting using language
I'd never heard him use before.

Margy

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:22:45 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> In simulation, the simulated ATC seems to be very inefficient at
>> spacing aircraft, because practically every fifth aircraft on landing
>> is told to go around. In fact, if you are told to follow someone in
>> for a landing, you can take for granted that he won't clear the runway
>> in time and you'll be told to go around. It's tiresome and
>> frustrating after spending a lot of effort to line things up nicely.
>>
>It's rare. I can't recall ever being told to go around at Dulles and
>I can recall only once having a Gulfstream sent around because I was
>on the runway. It's more common at airports with a lot of instructional

That's about my average as well for a bit over 1300 hours.

Once, many years ago an small turboprop had to go around at Lansing
as I hadn't cleared the runway. A couple years ago at MBS I was
told to "keep it in close" and then the guy ahead of me landed on the
numbers with a mile taxi to the first turnoff. I did a go around, was
still cleared, landed long, made the turn off and a DC-9 was able to
land behind me. Had I landed on the numbers the DC-9 would have had to
have gone around.

>activity. People don't clear the runway or mess up the spacing, or
>don't take off promptly when cleared, etc...
>
>
>I suspect the flight games throw in a few more unexpected incidents,
>malfunctions, etc... to make the games more interesting.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Emily]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Emily wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Then it's required that you give way in some other fashion.
>>
>>
>> How, when tower expects me to stay on final?
>
>
>
> Tower will fix the problem and right of way rules are of no concern.
> Just because I made you first doesn't mean you will necessarily stay
> first. If that plan doesn't work you may be the one to go around if
> that is the most efficient way to do things.

Well, I wasn't really speaking of right of way, more of being second
behind a much slower aircraft. And you resequencing me is fine, but
keep in mind that 1) the PIC is responsible for the safety of the
flight, 2) pilot is responsible for see and avoid in VMC, and 3) in the
interests of staying alive, I don't always trust ATC to keep me out of
the back of someone else.

[Jim Macklin]

Tower controllers often make mistakes, see and avoid is
always applicable. Right of way rules tell who and how to
avoid.

Self-preservation makes me get out of everybody's way.


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Emily wrote:
| > Newps wrote:
| >
| >>
| >>
| >> Jim Macklin wrote:
| >>
| >>> anywhere
| >>>
| >>> § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water
operations.
| >>> (a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to
the operation of
| >>> an aircraft on water.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>
| >> Right of way rules do not apply at tower controlled
fields.
| >
| >
| > Cite?
|
| The tower and the approach control, if so equipped, make
the sequence.
| They both change the sequence for arrivals and departures
solely at
| their discretion as the operation warrants. Controllers
are not taught
| right of way rules. Why would they? By definition those
rules are for
| when there is no control.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> It also doesn't make the plane unable to execute the instruction.
>> Ergo, you should have gone around.
>
> Instructions are flexible in simulation. If I followed all
> instructions slavishly, I'd occasionally be stuck for eternity on the
> ramp because the simulator doesn't give me the option of asking to
> taxi and take off.
>
That is a completely different scenario than you presented. Sometimes the
sim presents you with a situation where you are supposed to show proper
decision-making, and in the example I responed to, you did just about
everything wrong. That's your prerogative, of course, but IMO such
discussions are more appropriate in a sim group where the attitude and
behavior aren't dangerous and everyone can have a chuckle.

Neil

[Jim Macklin]

Let's see...
I've been told to turn to a heading that would put me in a
level 4-5 T
In all fairness I doubt their radar at the time actually
showed the weather.

I was on final approach and below 200 feet [ still a student
pilot ] when the controller realized that he had another
airplane on short final on an intersecting runway. He told
me to make a right 360 for traffic. I said "Unable, will
go-around and turn before I get to the intersection and
reenter downwind."

I was at 4000 feet in solid IMC approaching the VOR enroute
to the OM for an ILS. Heard the controller issue a
clearance to the OM at 4000 to a plane that had just missed
the ILS [another trainer ]. I reported the VOR and was
told to hold at the OM at 4000. The other airplane was
still below 3000 feet and we were at that moment about 4
miles apart.
I advised that I was turning left at 4000 and would
intercept the DME arc, "let me know when the traffic is
above 4000"

On a strict traffic count the airport had qualified for
radar for years, but the airline traffic was low, only a few
commuters a day, so it was all position reporting.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote
| >
| > However, as PIC you have the authority to decline an ATC
request if you think
| > it would be unsafe or would not feel comfortable doing
it, as it is the PIC
| > that is flying the aircraft, not ATC
|
| Although, if you say unable, you had better have a
reasonable reason for saying
| unable.
|
| The ATC can have you fly back out to the podunk VOR for
resequencing, or make
| you wait while 15 planes take off before you get your turn
to takeoff, or
| anything else he so desires, if he wants to show his
authority, if you get my
| drift. <g>
|
| That type of subject could start a whole new thread!
|
| How many of you have been given unreasonable ( in your
opinion) orders by ATC?
| --
| Jim in NC
|

[Jim Macklin]

With an operating tower, your traffic pattern can be
whatever you and the tower can agree on at the moment.
Right traffic, left traffic, straight in, are all OK if
approved. You can ask for a take-off on 1R and do a left
turn and get the option on 17R, next time around, teardrop
and land on 31 and then do an cross over at mid-field to a
left downwind full stop on 19L because it a closer taxi.
I've this type of creative traffic pattern at Wichita, Tulsa
Int'l and also fit into arriving airplane traffic while
doing multiengine training doing steep turns and close
traffic to avoid the final approach to the active runways.
Ask and you shall receive. But see and avoid and right of
way still applies.



"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Newps wrote:
| <snip>
| >>> Right of way rules do not apply at tower controlled
fields.
| >>
| >>
| >> Cite?
| >
| > The tower and the approach control, if so equipped, make
the sequence.
| > They both change the sequence for arrivals and
departures solely at
| > their discretion as the operation warrants. Controllers
are not taught
| > right of way rules. Why would they? By definition
those rules are for
| > when there is no control.
|
| I was just wondering. That's something I didn't get from
the regulation.

[Jim Macklin]

Right.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Newps wrote:
| >
| >
| > Emily wrote:
| >
| >
| >>>
| >>> Then it's required that you give way in some other
fashion.
| >>
| >>
| >> How, when tower expects me to stay on final?
| >
| >
| >
| > Tower will fix the problem and right of way rules are of
no concern.
| > Just because I made you first doesn't mean you will
necessarily stay
| > first. If that plan doesn't work you may be the one to
go around if
| > that is the most efficient way to do things.
|
| Well, I wasn't really speaking of right of way, more of
being second
| behind a much slower aircraft. And you resequencing me is
fine, but
| keep in mind that 1) the PIC is responsible for the safety
of the
| flight, 2) pilot is responsible for see and avoid in VMC,
and 3) in the
| interests of staying alive, I don't always trust ATC to
keep me out of
| the back of someone else.

[Jim Macklin]

That wasn't at OAK by any chance with MKF?



"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
|A Lieberma wrote:
| > Ron Natalie > wrote in
| > :
| >
| >
| >>You should plan better so you aren't running down the (I
believe it
| >>is a 182). I don't know what kind of approaches you
are making
| >>in the game, but you should hang further back in faster
aircraft.
| >>If you passed underneath me in real life, I'd have the
FAA on
| >>short final I'd have the FAA on your ass.
| >
| >
| > Dang Ron,
| >
| > Didn't you know that the lower plane has the right of
way in REAL life and
| > you should give way to a plane passing under you on
final
| >
| > *tongue in cheek*.
| >
| > Allen
| My 1st, supervised, student solo a twin cut me off on
short final by
| passing below me. I, stupid student, thought I had done
something
| wrong, until on the ground when my instructor starting
using language
| I'd never heard him use before.
|
| Margy

[John Clear]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>Everybody wins. I don't get sent around and controller has "proof" on the
>recording that he didn't break any rules.

PAO plays a similar game with pilots they know (ones that call
the tower controllers by name). Several times while a plane has
been slow getting to the end taxiway, they've cleared the plane holding in
position for high speed taxi, with take-off clearance happening on
the roll. Usually there is a plane on short final as well, so
everybody wins.

What PAO really needs is another taxi way between the middle of
the runway, and the end. The two taxiways near the middle are
right next to each other, and easy to miss if the landing is a
little long. Taxiing the 1000ft down to the end adds alot of time
on the runway.

Airport diagram pdf: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0610/09216AD.PDF

On the subject of go arounds, I had to go around today since a bird
decided to do a downwind take off just as I was on short final.
I had to break off the approach to avoid a collision.

There was also a flock of birds on downwind at one point. 'traffic
on downwind, a flock of birds, type unknown, possibly seagulls'
was the call from the tower.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> His dedication is to MSFS, not flying.

In general, an interest in simulation of something also indicates an
interest in the thing simulated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> The actual size of an aircraft at 3 miles is probably smaller than the projected
> size of the monitor's pixel.

Probably. I turned on the headings for MSFS and I still could not see
the aircraft--it was indeed smaller than one pixel, so there was
nothing there. It has to be about 1 nm away before I can see a pixel
moving (for small aircraft).

> It's your predator instincts that help pick out
> the airplane (e.g., "something's moving"), not the physical size of the dot.

Unfortunately there's a lot of aliasing on a computer display, so lots
of pixels are changing.

> The aircraft configuration isn't identifiable until it gets quite close, and not
> by type until it gets even closer. Though I once ID'd a friend's airplane at
> about three miles due to its color....

Real-life normal vision should be able to see an aircraft moving at a
greater distance than on a computer screen, I think, especially in
clear air (most computer screens do not fully tax human visual
acuity).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> You are probably correct... I was just thinking of a recent instance of when
> I was approaching RNT to land was given "Cleared to land #2 following Cessna
> on 3 mile final, report the traffic in sight..." and probably didn't pick
> him up until he was on about 1.5 - 2 mile final, which caused me to discover
> a phrase that causes concern in passengers... Glanced around doing my CGUMPS
> check, and then looked back out the windshield and said "Ok... Where did he
> go???" My passenger later on told me that that phase "concerned" her, and
> told her "Oh... I wasn't worried about hitting him. I just needed to know
> where he was at so that I knew when to turn, and if I couldn't find him I
> would have just asked the tower where he was..."

A famous PSA flight in San Diego uttered much the same words, and a
few seconds later, they hit him, so I can understand why she would be
concerned.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> Right hand pattern = all turns are made to the right from the pilot's
> perspective... take the "as seen by someone coming straight in" part out...

I'm having trouble visualizing a pattern with all right turns that
would not be to the right of the runway, as seen from the final
approach.

Likewise, if it contains only left turns, it would have to be to the
left.

However, certainly the pilot's point of view is the important one,
since that's what one sees outside the window.

> Right hand pattern is take off, followed by a right turn to crosswind,
> follwed shortly by a right turn to downwind, followed by a right turn to
> base, follwed by a right turn to final.

OK

> Standard pattern entry is a 45 to the downwind... However, when going into
> places like Boeing Field, it depends on where you are coming from... i.e.
> if you are arriving at Boeing Field from the south and they are landing to
> the south, the real life controller will just have do a "zero degree entry"
> to the downwind... if you are approaching from the NE (downtown Bellevue)
> and they are landing to the south they will usually tell you "report Seward
> Park" and at Seward park tell you "Cleared to land 13L" (short runway) and
> you have to make about 135 degree right hand turn to enter the downwind.
> The will occaisonally tell you "enter base for 13L" when coming from
> Bellevue, but have gotten the "Seward Park" thing much more frequently. And
> if you are approaching Boeing from the West, it is about a 90 degree entry
> to the downwind and "close in" (over the river)

So there is a rule if you are not told otherwise, but with many
exceptions?

If I hear "make base," does that mean enter the pattern at the normal
turn from downwind to base (entering right at that corner), or does it
mean a 45-degree entry into the base leg?

> And then of course Flight Sim doesn't cover local VFR procedures like
> "Mercer Departure" or "Vashon Departure", but that is kind of expected since
> there are so many airports in the product and many of them are not official
> FAA procedures i.e. try finding an FAA definition for "Vashon Departure" or
> "Mercer Departure", but in real life if you ask for a "Vashon Departure" the
> controller will clear you for and know exactly what you are talking about.

True, MSFS doesn't cover stuff like that. There are a lot of things
that are not covered by ATC, so you have to pretend. Unfortunately,
pretending removes any spontaneity, which in turn means that you know
what the ATC is going to "say" and you don't have to adapt on the spur
of the moment.

> Basic point of my comment was that the flight sim doesn't necessarily
> represent real life accurately in this aspect and that it would be a "fun
> feature" to have the FAA come down on the AI Pilots in flight sim, and that
> it is not a really good tool if you are trying to familiarize yourself with
> how things work at the real airport.

It's safe and very inexpensive, though.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:20:33 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja writes:
> > It's your predator instincts that help pick out
> > the airplane (e.g., "something's moving"), not the physical size of the dot.
>
> Unfortunately there's a lot of aliasing on a computer display, so lots
> of pixels are changing.

Yup. Yet another difference between simulations and real life.

> > The aircraft configuration isn't identifiable until it gets quite close, and not
> > by type until it gets even closer. Though I once ID'd a friend's airplane at
> > about three miles due to its color....
>
> Real-life normal vision should be able to see an aircraft moving at a
> greater distance than on a computer screen, I think, especially in
> clear air (most computer screens do not fully tax human visual
> acuity).

Unfortunately, there are other factors working against the pilot in a real
aircraft. There is a LOT of sky to look at, there are often multiple aircraft
to track, backgrounds are non-homogeneous, there's the off-center seating
position in most aircraft, there's haze, and there's dirt, flaws, and
reflections on one's own plexiglass. When I'm going into a high-traffic area, I
often weave the plane (open cockpit) back and forth slightly so I can get an
unobstructed view forward past the edges of the windscreen.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:28:52 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>
> > Right hand pattern = all turns are made to the right from the pilot's
> > perspective... take the "as seen by someone coming straight in" part out...
>
> I'm having trouble visualizing a pattern with all right turns that
> would not be to the right of the runway, as seen from the final
> approach.
>
> Likewise, if it contains only left turns, it would have to be to the
> left.

You're both saying the same thing, but Wade is defining it by the actions the
pilot takes (left or right turns). My home field has one runway. When the wind
is from the North, we fly a left-hand pattern and land to the North:

http://tinyurl.com/y55t8g

When the wind is from the south, we fly a right-hand pattern and land at the
opposite end:

http://tinyurl.com/tpmtn

To someone on a straight-in (the cad!) the rest of the planes are indeed to the
left or right, depending on which way we're landing. But pilots are more
concerned with how they have to maneuver their own aircraft.


Ron Wanttaja

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:28:52 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>>
>> > Right hand pattern = all turns are made to the right from the pilot's
>> > perspective... take the "as seen by someone coming straight in" part
>> > out...
>>
>> I'm having trouble visualizing a pattern with all right turns that
>> would not be to the right of the runway, as seen from the final
>> approach.
>>
>> Likewise, if it contains only left turns, it would have to be to the
>> left.
>
> You're both saying the same thing, but Wade is defining it by the actions
> the
> pilot takes (left or right turns). My home field has one runway. When
> the wind
> is from the North, we fly a left-hand pattern and land to the North:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y55t8g
>
> When the wind is from the south, we fly a right-hand pattern and land at
> the
> opposite end:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/tpmtn
>
> To someone on a straight-in (the cad!) the rest of the planes are indeed
> to the
> left or right, depending on which way we're landing. But pilots are more
> concerned with how they have to maneuver their own aircraft.
>
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Links for procedures to BFI (where I trained, and my former home airport)

http://www.metrokc.gov/airport/pilots/noise_chart.jpg
http://www.metrokc.gov/airport/pilots/procedures.stm

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>
>> Right hand pattern = all turns are made to the right from the pilot's
>> perspective... take the "as seen by someone coming straight in" part
>> out...
>
> I'm having trouble visualizing a pattern with all right turns that
> would not be to the right of the runway, as seen from the final
> approach.
>
> Likewise, if it contains only left turns, it would have to be to the
> left.

Why would you want to visualize it this way? To me that is confusing.

>
> However, certainly the pilot's point of view is the important one,
> since that's what one sees outside the window.
>
>> Right hand pattern is take off, followed by a right turn to crosswind,
>> follwed shortly by a right turn to downwind, followed by a right turn to
>> base, follwed by a right turn to final.
>
> OK
>
>> Standard pattern entry is a 45 to the downwind... However, when going
>> into
>> places like Boeing Field, it depends on where you are coming from...
>> i.e.
>> if you are arriving at Boeing Field from the south and they are landing
>> to
>> the south, the real life controller will just have do a "zero degree
>> entry"
>> to the downwind... if you are approaching from the NE (downtown Bellevue)
>> and they are landing to the south they will usually tell you "report
>> Seward
>> Park" and at Seward park tell you "Cleared to land 13L" (short runway)
>> and
>> you have to make about 135 degree right hand turn to enter the downwind.
>> The will occaisonally tell you "enter base for 13L" when coming from
>> Bellevue, but have gotten the "Seward Park" thing much more frequently.
>> And
>> if you are approaching Boeing from the West, it is about a 90 degree
>> entry
>> to the downwind and "close in" (over the river)
>
> So there is a rule if you are not told otherwise, but with many
> exceptions?

Yes, as I stated above, certain airports are sort of "interesting" like
Boeing Field, and this has to do with it's proximity to Renton (RNT) and
Sea-Tac (SEA). When Boeing Tower tells you "enter downwind for 13L" and you
are approaching from the south, they want you to do a direct entry to the
downwind, they can't have you flyout to the east and make a 45 degree entry,
because you would then be getting to close to the Renton Airport. Boeing
Field is very "non-standard" in many ways,

And, come to think of it, so far every towered airport I have been to (not
many - TIW, OLM, RNT, BFI, CYXX), when they wanted to me to enter on a 45 to
the downwind, they have specifically stated it.

>
> If I hear "make base," does that mean enter the pattern at the normal
> turn from downwind to base (entering right at that corner), or does it
> mean a 45-degree entry into the base leg?
>

No... It means a "0 degreee entry to base" from where your at... i.e. your
position is sufficent that you could fly perpendicular to the runway from
your position and make a direct/0 degree entry to the base leg.

>> And then of course Flight Sim doesn't cover local VFR procedures like
>> "Mercer Departure" or "Vashon Departure", but that is kind of expected
>> since
>> there are so many airports in the product and many of them are not
>> official
>> FAA procedures i.e. try finding an FAA definition for "Vashon Departure"
>> or
>> "Mercer Departure", but in real life if you ask for a "Vashon Departure"
>> the
>> controller will clear you for and know exactly what you are talking
>> about.
>
> True, MSFS doesn't cover stuff like that. There are a lot of things
> that are not covered by ATC, so you have to pretend. Unfortunately,
> pretending removes any spontaneity, which in turn means that you know
> what the ATC is going to "say" and you don't have to adapt on the spur
> of the moment.

Which if I am trying to practice/familarize myself with procedure specific
to a specific airport, MSFS is poor choice.

>
>> Basic point of my comment was that the flight sim doesn't necessarily
>> represent real life accurately in this aspect and that it would be a "fun
>> feature" to have the FAA come down on the AI Pilots in flight sim, and
>> that
>> it is not a really good tool if you are trying to familiarize yourself
>> with
>> how things work at the real airport.
>
> It's safe and very inexpensive, though.

and unrealistic in this area. if you are trying to simulate "real life"
MSFS is a poor choice in many areas, this is one of them. many of the
others have already been discussed in other threads, which I am not saying
it isn't useful for other things, as I have stated in other threads (as so
have others) that it is useful tool for certain things, as long as you
realize what those things are and don't claim that is a totally accurate
depiction of the real word.

[Ron Natalie]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

>>>
>> It's rare. I can't recall ever being told to go around at Dulles and
>> I can recall only once having a Gulfstream sent around because I was
>> on the runway. It's more common at airports with a lot of instructional
>
> That's about my average as well for a bit over 1300 hours.
>
> Once, many years ago an small turboprop had to go around at Lansing
> as I hadn't cleared the runway.

In our case, we were cleared into position and hold and not given
our take-off clearance when they sent the Gulfsteam around. We
offered to get off (would not have been a problem, they weren't
that close in).

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> No... It means a "0 degreee entry to base" from where your at... i.e. your
> position is sufficent that you could fly perpendicular to the runway from
> your position and make a direct/0 degree entry to the base leg.

OK. If I'm not aligned with the base leg, what would the controller
request of me, and how would I enter it? (I don't think the sim ATC
is that sophisticated, but I'd still like to know.)

Will controllers ever ask you to enter a pattern in a way that
requires a sharp turn? For example if your heading is 240 and your
landing runway is 24, would a controller ever ask you to enter the
downwind leg of the pattern, which (if I understand correctly) would
require swinging well out to the left of RWY24 and making a 180° turn?
If so, what would be the reason for it?

Also, are the directions of patterns (left or right) always assigned
to avoid crossing the take-off and landing paths of parallel runways?
And can I assume that a controller will not ask me to enter a pattern
in a situation where I'd have to cross the approach and landing paths
of a parallel runway in use?

What happens with the center runway, when there are three runways?
How does the pattern work? (Three parallel runways seems to be
uncommon, though, especially active runways.)

> Which if I am trying to practice/familarize myself with procedure specific
> to a specific airport, MSFS is poor choice.

Yes, but there are not a lot of other options.

> and unrealistic in this area. if you are trying to simulate "real life"
> MSFS is a poor choice in many areas, this is one of them. many of the
> others have already been discussed in other threads, which I am not saying
> it isn't useful for other things, as I have stated in other threads (as so
> have others) that it is useful tool for certain things, as long as you
> realize what those things are and don't claim that is a totally accurate
> depiction of the real word.

No simulation is totally accurate. But it's a lot better than
nothing, and I am not such a seasoned expert in flying that I cannot
learn from using the simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>
>> No... It means a "0 degreee entry to base" from where your at... i.e.
>> your
>> position is sufficent that you could fly perpendicular to the runway from
>> your position and make a direct/0 degree entry to the base leg.
>
> OK. If I'm not aligned with the base leg, what would the controller
> request of me, and how would I enter it? (I don't think the sim ATC
> is that sophisticated, but I'd still like to know.)
>

Enter the base leg as however you see appropriate, if a pilot is unsure of
or confused about what they are to do, the rule is "ask for clarification",
but you don't have anyone to ask in flight sim. Flight Sim gives you this
instruction before entering the aiport's airspace, so you should have plenty
of space and time, to get aligned for the base leg. There is reason why it
is "pilot in command" and not "Air Traffic Controller in Command".

Problem with Flight Sim, is they are going to tell you "Enter <leg of
pattern>" on intial contact, which doesn't always happen in real life...
For instance when approaching Boeing Field from the East, and calling them
from over downtown Bellevue before entering their airspace... They may tell
you one of two things (landing to the south). Usually they will tell you
"Report Seward Park" or they will tell you "enter Base for 13L" If it is
the first, which it is 9 out 10 times, you head for Seward Park, and once
over Seward Park you give them a call and they will usually say "Cleared to
land runway 13L", which then you execute turn that is somewhere between 90
degrees and 135 degrees to enter the downwind, or the may tell you "Enter
base for 13L", which doesn't happen very offten.

> Will controllers ever ask you to enter a pattern in a way that
> requires a sharp turn? For example if your heading is 240 and your
> landing runway is 24, would a controller ever ask you to enter the
> downwind leg of the pattern, which (if I understand correctly) would
> require swinging well out to the left of RWY24 and making a 180° turn?
> If so, what would be the reason for it?

If the controller has any sort of brain you should get a "straight-in for
Runway 24" Happens all the time when going into Boeing Field when
approaching from the south and they are landing to the north (Rwy 31L and
31R).

When I initially took lessons on a solo scholarship through CAP, my
instructor and I were out doing touch and goes on Rwy 34 at GTF, on about
the third one, mid-field, the controller told us "Cessna xxxx, Cleared Touch
and Go, Runway 16.", which I looked at my instructor and asked "You mean we
gotta turn around and go to the other end???", which he told to hold on a
second, and about 3 seconds later, the controller came back and said "Sorry,
Cessna xxxx, cleared touch and go, Runway 34.", which afterward my
instructor said "Student controller..." and smiled.



> Also, are the directions of patterns (left or right) always assigned
> to avoid crossing the take-off and landing paths of parallel runways?
> And can I assume that a controller will not ask me to enter a pattern
> in a situation where I'd have to cross the approach and landing paths
> of a parallel runway in use?
>
> What happens with the center runway, when there are three runways?
> How does the pattern work? (Three parallel runways seems to be
> uncommon, though, especially active runways.)

Would assume the Center runway is pretty much always a "straight-in", don't
know of any non-towered airports that have three parallel runways. Never
landed at an airport with three parallel runways so, I don't know.

[SChief]

Interesting thread. I'm pretty new having just done my solo cross country,
but I do have several entrys into Honolulu Class B space. I find its always
an adventure coming into Honolulu. We do normal 45 degree entries into
down wind, direct to base and even direct final, with frequent directions
from ATC to circle at various points enroute to delay for other traffic
coming in. We go from on final to 04L to "make that 04R". I've turned
final and then been told to make a 360 right where I was at -- all in all I
think its fair to say you need to be prepared for the unexpected when coming
into and when in the pattern.... But, ain't it fun :-)

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>>
>>> No... It means a "0 degreee entry to base" from where your at... i.e.
>>> your
>>> position is sufficent that you could fly perpendicular to the runway
>>> from
>>> your position and make a direct/0 degree entry to the base leg.
>>
>> OK. If I'm not aligned with the base leg, what would the controller
>> request of me, and how would I enter it? (I don't think the sim ATC
>> is that sophisticated, but I'd still like to know.)
>>
>
> Enter the base leg as however you see appropriate, if a pilot is unsure of
> or confused about what they are to do, the rule is "ask for
> clarification", but you don't have anyone to ask in flight sim. Flight
> Sim gives you this instruction before entering the aiport's airspace, so
> you should have plenty of space and time, to get aligned for the base leg.
> There is reason why it is "pilot in command" and not "Air Traffic
> Controller in Command".
>
> Problem with Flight Sim, is they are going to tell you "Enter <leg of
> pattern>" on intial contact, which doesn't always happen in real life...
> For instance when approaching Boeing Field from the East, and calling them
> from over downtown Bellevue before entering their airspace... They may
> tell you one of two things (landing to the south). Usually they will tell
> you "Report Seward Park" or they will tell you "enter Base for 13L" If it
> is the first, which it is 9 out 10 times, you head for Seward Park, and
> once over Seward Park you give them a call and they will usually say
> "Cleared to land runway 13L", which then you execute turn that is
> somewhere between 90 degrees and 135 degrees to enter the downwind, or the
> may tell you "Enter base for 13L", which doesn't happen very offten.
>
>> Will controllers ever ask you to enter a pattern in a way that
>> requires a sharp turn? For example if your heading is 240 and your
>> landing runway is 24, would a controller ever ask you to enter the
>> downwind leg of the pattern, which (if I understand correctly) would
>> require swinging well out to the left of RWY24 and making a 180° turn?
>> If so, what would be the reason for it?
>
> If the controller has any sort of brain you should get a "straight-in for
> Runway 24" Happens all the time when going into Boeing Field when
> approaching from the south and they are landing to the north (Rwy 31L and
> 31R).
>
> When I initially took lessons on a solo scholarship through CAP, my
> instructor and I were out doing touch and goes on Rwy 34 at GTF, on about
> the third one, mid-field, the controller told us "Cessna xxxx, Cleared
> Touch and Go, Runway 16.", which I looked at my instructor and asked "You
> mean we gotta turn around and go to the other end???", which he told to
> hold on a second, and about 3 seconds later, the controller came back and
> said "Sorry, Cessna xxxx, cleared touch and go, Runway 34.", which
> afterward my instructor said "Student controller..." and smiled.
>
>
>
>> Also, are the directions of patterns (left or right) always assigned
>> to avoid crossing the take-off and landing paths of parallel runways?
>> And can I assume that a controller will not ask me to enter a pattern
>> in a situation where I'd have to cross the approach and landing paths
>> of a parallel runway in use?
>>
>> What happens with the center runway, when there are three runways?
>> How does the pattern work? (Three parallel runways seems to be
>> uncommon, though, especially active runways.)
>
> Would assume the Center runway is pretty much always a "straight-in",
> don't know of any non-towered airports that have three parallel runways.
> Never landed at an airport with three parallel runways so, I don't know.
>
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:57:12 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>> Right.. for example at OSH where they are landing 3 planes at a time on
>> the same runway.
>>
>>
>Oshkosh gets a special exemption to allow that. Normally,
>there are stricter rules that the controllers must follow.
>They have to plan (with little exception) that one aircraft
>can not touch down until the other is clear.

Going into OSH about a week before the fly-in one year there were a
pair of us flying loose formation turning final. One was a Cozy and
the other my Deb. A tail dragger had landed and only partially turned
off at the first taxiway. The Cozy (canard) didn't have room to land.
I told the tower I had plenty of room. There was a pause followed by
ahhh OK. I had to apply power to get up to the tail dragger who was
still setting there talking to the ground crew. I started to go
around and they were gesturing for him to hurry up and get out of the
way. After all he could have stopped clear of the runway as he had a
good 100 feet plus to the west parallel taxiway for 36.

As usual I had trouble convincing them the Deb went in the classic
camping area even with my 1959 model sign.<:-))


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:56:25 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>With an operating tower, your traffic pattern can be
>whatever you and the tower can agree on at the moment.
>Right traffic, left traffic, straight in, are all OK if
>approved. You can ask for a take-off on 1R and do a left
>turn and get the option on 17R, next time around, teardrop
>and land on 31 and then do an cross over at mid-field to a
>left downwind full stop on 19L because it a closer taxi.
>I've this type of creative traffic pattern at Wichita, Tulsa
>Int'l and also fit into arriving airplane traffic while

3BS is uncontrolled. The RNAV/GPS for both 06 and 24 start so far out
they are straight in from outside the airport area. The VOR-A comes
in at an angle at half pattern altitude crossing all runways at about
45 degrees. We have 18/36 and 06/24 while the approach is a circle
to land from a heading of 137 degrees at 500 AGL. That's where you
really need a safety pilot with their head on a swivel and I still
take the foggles off at least 3 miles out.

>doing multiengine training doing steep turns and close
>traffic to avoid the final approach to the active runways.
>Ask and you shall receive. But see and avoid and right of
>way still applies.

I've even had the ILS 28 when traffic was departing 10 at TVC. It was
see and avoid as well as advisories from the tower. I gotta admit
that with a 20 knot tail wind maintaining the GS was a challenge.
<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
> and you get no sense of accomplishment sitting in
> your lazy boy chair either AFTER flying a REAL
> plane. After all, you are only SIMULATING what
> is experienced better in a REAL plane.

So, does that mean that after sim-flying, the simmer can only drink a
near-beer?

[A Lieberma]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in
:

> "A Lieberma" > wrote in message

> So, does that mean that after sim-flying, the simmer can only drink a
> near-beer?

More like a Hi C fruit drink *big evil grin* or a Shirley Temple.

Allen