interesting moment yesterday on final

[Tom[_5_]]

So I went for a lovely flight yesterday, from Bedford (KBED) down to
Nantucket (KACK) for dinner. We flew down there in the last hour or so
of daylight with a smooth ride and great views, and then returned at
night with an even smoother ride and great night-time views, including
a few circles over Harvard, MIT and Back Bay on the way home. ATC were
very accommodating since it was fairly late.

Bedford tower was closed so I was on the CTAF frequency as I
approached the field. I was initially thinking of taking runway 24
since the winds were 190. When I announced my imminent arrival in the
vicinity of the field an aircraft informed me they were on final for
11. They also mentioned an aircraft in the area that was at 5,000 and
on an IFR flight plan but not talking to ATC, possibly inbound for
landing as well.

Armed with this information, I changed my plan and entered a downwind
leg for 11 (since the winds were not strong and that seemed to be the
established pattern). I announced my downwind leg, my base and my
final (looking out for traffic all the way). When I was at 1 mile
final, I hear

"Nxxxx, 3 mile final for 11, Bedford"
I respond with "I am 1 mile final for 11, Bedford"
He responds with "We'll slow it down"
This doesn't comfort me that much, since I'm only going 65 knots.
Maybe I should have said this to him at the time.
Then he comes in again with "We're going to break off our approach, do
a 360 and rejoin"
As I'm at 50ft, he says "Have you landed yet"
I reply with "Just about to touch down"

Then I land, clear the runway, inform him I am clear, and then he
lands. Everything works out fine although my landing isn't exactly a
greaser.

I didn't feel that great about the incident: did I do something wrong?
Why didn't I see him on final before I turned final (I specifically
remember looking in that direction before turning final)? What if the
timings had been slightly different?

And for his part, shouldn't he have been on the frequency and known I
was in the pattern? Shouldn't his first call have been a lot sooner
than 3 mile final? Shouldn't he have flown a circuit rather than come
straight in? I'm assuming he wasn't in any kind of emergency situation
as he would have asked me to go around.

Thoughts appreciated, especially from those with extensive flying
experience.

Tom

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 1:13 pm, Tom > wrote:
[snippage of uncomfortably close call at non-towered field]
> Tom

It doesn't sound to me like you did anything wrong. If he was only two
miles away and facing you I would think that you'd see his landing
light - assuming he has it on.

I fly out of a towered airport and did all my training out of there.
I'm still getting comfortable with non-towered. That said, it is not
at all uncommon for folks to do straight in approaches at non-towered
airports. I personally am at least listening on the CTAF 10 miles out
and announce at 5. I think that's prudent. I also have my landing
light on from 10 miles out. I've never done a straight in to a non-
towered airport, but I don't find them particularly dangerous to be
around _providing_ the other pilot is listening, talking and watching.
If he just switched to the freq at 3 miles, didn't have his landing
light on yet then that's dangerous.

IMHO,
John Stevens
PP-ASEL

[Ross]

wrote:
> On Apr 27, 1:13 pm, Tom > wrote:
> [snippage of uncomfortably close call at non-towered field]
>
>>Tom
>
>
> It doesn't sound to me like you did anything wrong. If he was only two
> miles away and facing you I would think that you'd see his landing
> light - assuming he has it on.
>
> I fly out of a towered airport and did all my training out of there.
> I'm still getting comfortable with non-towered. That said, it is not
> at all uncommon for folks to do straight in approaches at non-towered
> airports. I personally am at least listening on the CTAF 10 miles out
> and announce at 5. I think that's prudent. I also have my landing
> light on from 10 miles out. I've never done a straight in to a non-
> towered airport, but I don't find them particularly dangerous to be
> around _providing_ the other pilot is listening, talking and watching.
> If he just switched to the freq at 3 miles, didn't have his landing
> light on yet then that's dangerous.
>
> IMHO,
> John Stevens
> PP-ASEL
>

At our uncontrolled airport there were three planes in the pattern for
landing. A plane calls out that he is 5 miles for the straight in. I
replied that with the traffic, traditional pattern may be appropriate.
He called that he would enter the correct pattern.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
>
> At our uncontrolled airport there were three planes in the pattern for
> landing. A plane calls out that he is 5 miles for the straight in. I
> replied that with the traffic, traditional pattern may be appropriate.

Why?

[ktbr]

Tom wrote:

> And for his part, shouldn't he have been on the frequency and known I
> was in the pattern? Shouldn't his first call have been a lot sooner
> than 3 mile final? Shouldn't he have flown a circuit rather than come
> straight in? I'm assuming he wasn't in any kind of emergency situation
> as he would have asked me to go around.
>
> Thoughts appreciated, especially from those with extensive flying
> experience.
>
> Tom
>

If he was IFR its possible ATC did not clear him to go to advisory
frequency soon enough, for whatever reason... maybe he did not have
the airport in sight soon enough. I like to be over on the local
frequency by at least 5 miles out.

Anyway you did what you had to do and he did what he had to do.

[Tom[_5_]]

> My first reaction is that I'm surprised that he wasn't looking for you,
> given that he was attempting a straight-in from only 3 miles out with
> known traffic in the pattern. He shouldn't have had to ask whether you
> landed yet or not.

My guess is that he switched to the frequency and then immediately
called his 3 mile final, so he didn't initially know I was in the
pattern. I think he was probably half way through his 360 when he
asked if I had landed or not.

>
> At uncontrolled fields anything can happen, and should be watched for. The
> uncontrolled field I use most often has two crossing runways and *no*
> established pattern. It isn't unusual to have several planes in the
> pattern as well as incoming traffic of various kinds from biz jets to
> biplanes and helos. People come in as they wish, and only those with
> radios can announce. Gives "see and avoid" a bit of signficance! ;-)
>

Must be interesting.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Tom" > wrote ...
> Bedford tower was closed so I was on the CTAF frequency as I
> approached the field.
> ... (another plane mentions) an aircraft in the area that was at 5,000
> and on an IFR flight plan but not talking to ATC, possibly inbound for
> landing as well.

This sounds like misinformation.

>
> I didn't feel that great about the incident: did I do something wrong?
> Why didn't I see him on final before I turned final (I specifically
> remember looking in that direction before turning final)? What if the
> timings had been slightly different?

It sounds like it went very well (both you and the other pilot). You
announced 1 mile final, he said he'd slow down but then realized the
futility of that and did a different maneuver to get better spacing behind
you.

As far as looking down final, ...the base leg is a busy period where you're
rolling level, maintaining your decent, watching your airspeed, maybe adding
flaps, looking for your landing point, and clearing the final approach for
any other inbound. Lots of times, if you are not aware of an actual inbound,
that "look" is just cursory and short of a 747 with lights on, you'll miss
that traffic. Also, pilots do not always report the distances accurately.
Sounds like he may have initiated a standard rate 360 and called you on roll
out, which would be about 2 minutes later. But you state a 1 mile final, and
approx two minutes later you were 50agl, that's a long time for a no wind 1
mile final.

But again, the events you describe sound pretty routine for after hour ops
at any airport under a B or C shelf. When I first learned to fly I actually
avoided non-towered fields because planes seemed to pop out of the strangest
places.
Places I know I just looked and were empty. ;-o

[Erik]

wrote:

> On Apr 27, 1:13 pm, Tom > wrote:
> [snippage of uncomfortably close call at non-towered field]
>
>>Tom
>
>
> It doesn't sound to me like you did anything wrong. If he was only two
> miles away and facing you I would think that you'd see his landing
> light - assuming he has it on.
>
> I fly out of a towered airport and did all my training out of there.
> I'm still getting comfortable with non-towered. That said, it is not
> at all uncommon for folks to do straight in approaches at non-towered
> airports.

However, it is HIGHLY annoying.

[Erik]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>At our uncontrolled airport there were three planes in the pattern for
>>landing. A plane calls out that he is 5 miles for the straight in. I
>>replied that with the traffic, traditional pattern may be appropriate.
>
>
> Why?
>
>

Because straight in approaches at an uncontrolled airport
disrupt the pattern that everyone is using. Perhaps if there
were no other traffic at the time, it would be perfectly fine
but when everyone is in line and doing their thing, someone
cutting in sucks. There is a fairly large municipal airport
nearby that accommodates jets and sometimes, we single engine
folk have to anticipate them, but it still disrupts things.

[Erik]

Tom wrote:

>>My first reaction is that I'm surprised that he wasn't looking for you,
>>given that he was attempting a straight-in from only 3 miles out with
>>known traffic in the pattern. He shouldn't have had to ask whether you
>>landed yet or not.
>
>
> My guess is that he switched to the frequency and then immediately
> called his 3 mile final, so he didn't initially know I was in the
> pattern.

Inconsiderate and unsafe.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Tom > posted:

> So I went for a lovely flight yesterday, from Bedford (KBED) down to
> Nantucket (KACK) for dinner. We flew down there in the last hour or so
> of daylight with a smooth ride and great views, and then returned at
> night with an even smoother ride and great night-time views, including
> a few circles over Harvard, MIT and Back Bay on the way home. ATC were
> very accommodating since it was fairly late.
>
> Bedford tower was closed so I was on the CTAF frequency as I
> approached the field. I was initially thinking of taking runway 24
> since the winds were 190. When I announced my imminent arrival in the
> vicinity of the field an aircraft informed me they were on final for
> 11. They also mentioned an aircraft in the area that was at 5,000 and
> on an IFR flight plan but not talking to ATC, possibly inbound for
> landing as well.
>
> Armed with this information, I changed my plan and entered a downwind
> leg for 11 (since the winds were not strong and that seemed to be the
> established pattern). I announced my downwind leg, my base and my
> final (looking out for traffic all the way). When I was at 1 mile
> final, I hear
>
> "Nxxxx, 3 mile final for 11, Bedford"
> I respond with "I am 1 mile final for 11, Bedford"
> He responds with "We'll slow it down"
> This doesn't comfort me that much, since I'm only going 65 knots.
> Maybe I should have said this to him at the time.
> Then he comes in again with "We're going to break off our approach, do
> a 360 and rejoin"
> As I'm at 50ft, he says "Have you landed yet"
> I reply with "Just about to touch down"
>
> Then I land, clear the runway, inform him I am clear, and then he
> lands. Everything works out fine although my landing isn't exactly a
> greaser.
>
> I didn't feel that great about the incident: did I do something wrong?
> Why didn't I see him on final before I turned final (I specifically
> remember looking in that direction before turning final)? What if the
> timings had been slightly different?
>
> And for his part, shouldn't he have been on the frequency and known I
> was in the pattern? Shouldn't his first call have been a lot sooner
> than 3 mile final? Shouldn't he have flown a circuit rather than come
> straight in? I'm assuming he wasn't in any kind of emergency situation
> as he would have asked me to go around.
>
> Thoughts appreciated, especially from those with extensive flying
> experience.
>
> Tom
>
My first reaction is that I'm surprised that he wasn't looking for you,
given that he was attempting a straight-in from only 3 miles out with
known traffic in the pattern. He shouldn't have had to ask whether you
landed yet or not.

At uncontrolled fields anything can happen, and should be watched for. The
uncontrolled field I use most often has two crossing runways and *no*
established pattern. It isn't unusual to have several planes in the
pattern as well as incoming traffic of various kinds from biz jets to
biplanes and helos. People come in as they wish, and only those with
radios can announce. Gives "see and avoid" a bit of signficance! ;-)

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On 27 Apr 2007 10:13:14 -0700, Tom > wrote in
om>:

>I didn't feel that great about the incident: did I do something wrong?

That depends on the altitudes of your and his aircraft:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3ae4603a89b0ba22c31da6fb79cdcf30&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7
§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(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.

(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.

>Why didn't I see him on final before I turned final (I specifically
>remember looking in that direction before turning final)?

Perhaps he was so low, that his visual conspicuity was diminished
against the surface clutter?

[Tom[_5_]]

> This sounds like misinformation.

What do you mean?

>
> As far as looking down final, ...the base leg is a busy period where you're
> rolling level, maintaining your decent, watching your airspeed, maybe adding
> flaps, looking for your landing point, and clearing the final approach for
> any other inbound. Lots of times, if you are not aware of an actual inbound,
> that "look" is just cursory and short of a 747 with lights on, you'll miss
> that traffic. Also, pilots do not always report the distances accurately.
> Sounds like he may have initiated a standard rate 360 and called you on roll
> out, which would be about 2 minutes later. But you state a 1 mile final, and
> approx two minutes later you were 50agl, that's a long time for a no wind 1
> mile final.

Good point about the look possibly being cursory. My guess is he
called my half way through the turn (which was why he couldn't see
me), which would be about right for a 1 minute 1 mile final at 65
knots.

>
> But again, the events you describe sound pretty routine for after hour ops
> at any airport under a B or C shelf. When I first learned to fly I actually
> avoided non-towered fields because planes seemed to pop out of the strangest
> places.
> Places I know I just looked and were empty. ;-o

[Erik]

I had an opportunity to go head to head with someone
once. I was in the established pattern, there were about
3 or 4 of us. I called my turn to base. Shortly after,
this guy announces base.

I'm looking around like my head was detached from my body.
I called and asked if he really had announced base because
I can't find anyone. He never answers.

I'm still looking and turn final. I announce my position
and he announces final.

Lo and behold, there he is, about a mile away from me coming
from the opposite direction. I move over to the right a bit
and stop my descent. Someone told him that he was opposite
the calm wind runway. He announces he's leaving the area and
splits.

I go around and do it all again.

(Note to self: Remember that yours isn't the only pattern,
there's another on the other runway)

[karl gruber[_1_]]

> landing. A plane calls out that he is 5 miles for the straight in. I
> replied that with the traffic, traditional pattern may be appropriate. He
> called that he would enter the correct pattern.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI

Are you working on your junior "G" man controller badge? I'd have told you
to mind your own business!

Karl

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:02:13 +0000, ktbr wrote:

> I like to be over on the local frequency by
> at least 5 miles out.

Even w/o being cleared, I like to at least be monitoring CTAF further out
than that. However, if the frequency is busy this becomes impossible as
it interferes with my ability to communicate with ATC. So it's a
sometimes thing.

[Why doesn't an audio panel have a "priority" mechanism, so a squelch
break on com X squelches com Y (or nav X or nav Y)? Or do some have this
feature?]

It's a little annoying, in a way. I was just at an ASF seminar where
"anyone in the pattern" was [justifiably] ridiculed. But the idea that
anyone approaching the airport should be on the CTAF while still way out
ignores the reality of IFR in some locations/under some conditions.

- Andrew

[Erik]

karl gruber wrote:

>>landing. A plane calls out that he is 5 miles for the straight in. I
>>replied that with the traffic, traditional pattern may be appropriate. He
>>called that he would enter the correct pattern.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Regards, Ross
>>C-172F 180HP
>>KSWI
>
>
> Are you working on your junior "G" man controller badge? I'd have told you
> to mind your own business!
>
> Karl
>

That is exactly what I was thinking. Who the hell is he to tell
someone that doesn't give a crap about the pattern what to do!

I hate the busy bodies that are always sticking their nose in there
trying to disrupt people that are doing their own thing regardless
of what everyone around them are doing. Why, just the other day
I was at Carl's Jr and there was a big line. I thought, "I don't
want to wait all this time!" and went right to the counter. Some
busy body behind me told me to get back in line. I told them where
they could stick it.

[Judah]

ktbr > wrote in :

> If he was IFR its possible ATC did not clear him to go to advisory
> frequency soon enough, for whatever reason... maybe he did not have
> the airport in sight soon enough. I like to be over on the local
> frequency by at least 5 miles out.

If he was IFR, ATC would have probably informed him there was traffic in the
pattern at his destination and might have tried to wait until he had a visual
before allowing him to change frequency.

If he was a big plane with multiple radios (and perhaps pilots), he should
have been monitoring CTAF for many more miles than 3, but he might not have
been talking.

He yielded and did a 360, which implies to me that he might have known the OP
was there and what to expect...

[Judah]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:02:13 +0000, ktbr wrote:
>
> [Why doesn't an audio panel have a "priority" mechanism, so a squelch
> break on com X squelches com Y (or nav X or nav Y)? Or do some have this
> feature?]

On our CNX-80's (or whatever they're called now :), you can push a button to
monitor the standby frequency. The selected frequency will cut off the
standby frequency if both are receiving...

It's a great unit...

[Newps]

Erik wrote:

>
> Because straight in approaches at an uncontrolled airport
> disrupt the pattern that everyone is using. Perhaps if there
> were no other traffic at the time, it would be perfectly fine
> but when everyone is in line and doing their thing, someone
> cutting in sucks. There is a fairly large municipal airport
> nearby that accommodates jets and sometimes, we single engine
> folk have to anticipate them, but it still disrupts things.



So you'll gladly adjust the size of your pattern, maybe extend an upwind
or crosswind to fit somebody in the pattern because he enters it the
'right' way. But if he tries to enter on a straight in it's disrupting
the pattern?

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Erik wrote:
>
>Because straight in approaches at an uncontrolled airport
>disrupt the pattern that everyone is using. Perhaps if there
>were no other traffic at the time, it would be perfectly fine
>but when everyone is in line and doing their thing, someone
>cutting in sucks. There is a fairly large municipal airport
>nearby that accommodates jets and sometimes, we single engine
>folk have to anticipate them, but it still disrupts things.

I think you're taking a very narrow view of things. I often practice my
pattern work at a not-towered airport that has an ILS approach. This airport
is popular for instrument training and there are usually several planes
flying the ILS, which involves about a 5 mile straight-in. Fitting the
straight-in traffic into the pattern is not as difficult as you make it out
to be. All it takes is a little communication between the aircraft on
downwind and the aircraft on final. Sometimes it's easier for the downwind
traffic to fly a tighter pattern and land first, other times it's better to
have the downwind aircraft extend for an extra 30 seconds or so. Either way,
I can't see why this is such a big deal.

In the OP's case, the straight-in traffic appeared to be late getting on
the frequency. They coordinated a solution and everyone made it down in one
piece. Sounds like an average day at a non-towered airport to me.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Erik" > wrote

> Some
> busy body behind me told me to get back in line. I told them where
> they could stick it.

So you are a bully, that thinks his time is more important than everyone
else?

One of these days, you will come up against someone that will "put" you back
in line with everyone else, by force.

We don't need people with your attitude representing GA.
--
Jim in NC

[RomeoMike]

Maybe Erik was being sarcastic?

Morgans wrote:
> "Erik" > wrote
>
>> Some
>> busy body behind me told me to get back in line. I told them where
>> they could stick it.
>
> So you are a bully, that thinks his time is more important than everyone
> else?
>
> One of these days, you will come up against someone that will "put" you back
> in line with everyone else, by force.
>
> We don't need people with your attitude representing GA.

[Bob Noel]

In article <715979707cdb8@uwe>, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe>
wrote:

> In the OP's case, the straight-in traffic appeared to be late getting on
> the frequency. They coordinated a solution and everyone made it down in one
> piece. Sounds like an average day at a non-towered airport to me.

One point that no one mentioned (that I saw), KBED doesn't get much traffic
when the tower is closed, partly because of the charges (aka fines) for
operations after 11pm. I would have thought anyone on 118.5 would
have been surprised that anyone else was also on.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Erik]

RomeoMike wrote:
> Maybe Erik was being sarcastic?

Exactly my point. I can understand some big jet or something that
can't fly the same pattern the little 150 flies, so I'll
accommodate them. If some other 150 comes in and wants to straight
in and and there's already people in the pattern, get in line, pal,
or wait until there's nobody to disrupt to practice long finals.

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>Erik wrote:
>
>>
>> Because straight in approaches at an uncontrolled airport
>> disrupt the pattern that everyone is using. Perhaps if there
>> were no other traffic at the time, it would be perfectly fine
>> but when everyone is in line and doing their thing, someone
>> cutting in sucks. There is a fairly large municipal airport
>> nearby that accommodates jets and sometimes, we single engine
>> folk have to anticipate them, but it still disrupts things.
>
>
>
>So you'll gladly adjust the size of your pattern, maybe extend an upwind
>or crosswind to fit somebody in the pattern because he enters it the
>'right' way. But if he tries to enter on a straight in it's disrupting
>the pattern?

That is a simplistic view of things. Yes it is disrupting, and yes I
would make room. Even if it is not the "right way" of doing things.
I have always (though my flying career is still quite young) entered
on the 45. If I have to go out of my way to enter on the 45, that I
what I do. Would I cut someone off on a disruptive straight in, no.
Are they in the wrong, IMHO yes they are, but I can't argue about it
if I am dead.
Mike Flyin' 8

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>
>> Some
>> busy body behind me told me to get back in line. I told them where
>> they could stick it.
>
>So you are a bully, that thinks his time is more important than everyone
>else?
>
>One of these days, you will come up against someone that will "put" you back
>in line with everyone else, by force.
>
>We don't need people with your attitude representing GA.

Uhm... I think that was sarcasm.
Mike Flyin' 8

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Erik" > wrote in message
...
> RomeoMike wrote:
>> Maybe Erik was being sarcastic?
>
> Exactly my point. I can understand some big jet or something that
> can't fly the same pattern the little 150 flies, so I'll
> accommodate them. If some other 150 comes in and wants to straight
> in and and there's already people in the pattern, get in line, pal,
> or wait until there's nobody to disrupt to practice long finals.

My apologies. I'm usually pretty good at "getting" sarcastic, but I sure
missed it this time.

I have a real sore spot for the people that charge all of the way up to the
barrels (on the interstates) to crowd into line, where there are lanes
closed down, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote

> Uhm... I think that was sarcasm.

Yep, so I hear. I missed it completely. Sorry.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
>>So you'll gladly adjust the size of your pattern, maybe extend an upwind
>>or crosswind to fit somebody in the pattern because he enters it the
>>'right' way. But if he tries to enter on a straight in it's disrupting
>>the pattern?
>
> That is a simplistic view of things. Yes it is disrupting, and yes I
> would make room. Even if it is not the "right way" of doing things.
> I have always (though my flying career is still quite young) entered
> on the 45. If I have to go out of my way to enter on the 45, that I
> what I do. Would I cut someone off on a disruptive straight in, no.
> Are they in the wrong, IMHO yes they are, but I can't argue about it
> if I am dead.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html
The 45-Degree Zealots

There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern entries.
Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a small-but-vocal
cadre of pilots - and even some FAA inspectors - who consider any other type
of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to be a felony. These

By John Deakin

[Newps]

Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:

> I have always (though my flying career is still quite young) entered
> on the 45. If I have to go out of my way to enter on the 45, that I
> what I do.


I never do, unless my direction from the airport lends an entry on the
downwind. Fly past the airport just so I can get on a 45? You must be
joking.



Would I cut someone off on a disruptive straight in, no.
> Are they in the wrong, IMHO yes they are, but I can't argue about it
> if I am dead.


You are wrong.

[Sylvain]

Erik wrote:

> RomeoMike wrote:
>> Maybe Erik was being sarcastic?
>
> Exactly my point. I can understand some big jet or something that
> can't fly the same pattern the little 150 flies, so I'll
> accommodate them. If some other 150 comes in and wants to straight
> in and and there's already people in the pattern, get in line, pal,
> or wait until there's nobody to disrupt to practice long finals.

have you considered that the aircraft might have been on an instrument
approach? he might have been just told to switch the CTAF and was
announcing his presence and intention avoiding IFR jargon.

--Sylvain

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 3:14 pm, Newps > wrote:

> So you'll gladly adjust the size of your pattern, maybe extend an upwind
> or crosswind to fit somebody in the pattern because he enters it the
> 'right' way. But if he tries to enter on a straight in it's disrupting
> the pattern?

WEEEeeeeellll, come to think of it......yeah. Yeah, that pretty much
sums it up, for the most part. There being exceptions and all.

If you come to the playground, you should make nice with everyone
instead of telling them to all hold off, now that you're here and
all. Especially since some of them might not have radios.

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
>
>> I have always (though my flying career is still quite young) entered
>> on the 45. If I have to go out of my way to enter on the 45, that I
>> what I do.
>
>I never do, unless my direction from the airport lends an entry on the
>downwind. Fly past the airport just so I can get on a 45? You must be
>joking.

No. I am not joking. How do you enter the pattern? Certaily not a
straight in at every field. I think I have entered direct on the
downwind once, but it was at 10pm and not another craft was in the
area, but that is not what we are talking about here.

> Would I cut someone off on a disruptive straight in, no.
>> Are they in the wrong, IMHO yes they are, but I can't argue about it
>> if I am dead.

>You are wrong.

No matter how you want to look at it, if there are already some planes
in the pattern a straight-in approach is disruptive. Besides that...
doing the 45 entry. In the end, your and my safety is all that
matters. So what if it takes 2 extra minutes to enter the pattern the
way the majority of the pilots at a particular field expect patern
entry.
Mike Flyin' 8

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html
> The 45-Degree Zealots
>
>There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern entries.
>Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a small-but-vocal
>cadre of pilots - and even some FAA inspectors - who consider any other type
>of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to be a felony. These
>
>By John Deakin

I would consider myself far from a 45 entry nazi. I have never
complained to anyone on CTAF, nor would I. While in the privacy of my
own cockpit, I do flip them off as they pop up unannounced out of
nowhere. <slight exageration for most cases but you get the point.>


Mike Flyin' 8

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Erik" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because straight in approaches at an uncontrolled airport
> disrupt the pattern that everyone is using.
>

No more so than entering on the downwind .


>
> Perhaps if there
> were no other traffic at the time, it would be perfectly fine
> but when everyone is in line and doing their thing, someone
> cutting in sucks.
>

A straight-in approach is not "cutting in". Too many pilots believe pattern
traffic has the right -of-way.


>
> There is a fairly large municipal airport
> nearby that accommodates jets and sometimes, we single engine
> folk have to anticipate them, but it still disrupts things.
>

Right. It's far better to have the jet fly a full pattern and mix it up
with the single engine folks than to have the single engine folks extend
downwind to follow a jet on a straight in approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Erik" > wrote in message
...
>
> Inconsiderate and unsafe.
>

How so?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> If he was IFR, ATC would have probably informed him there was traffic in
> the pattern at his destination and might have tried to wait until he had a
> visual before allowing him to change frequency.
>

If ATC was showing traffic at his destination he should have been advised of
that before frequency change, but the frequency change shouldn't be delayed.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

> If ATC was showing traffic at his destination he should have been
> advised of that before frequency change, but the frequency change
> shouldn't be delayed.

Should is a very important word here...

From my own experience, if I call the traffic and the airport, ATC will
advise me to change frequency and allow me to cancel IFR if I am VMC. But if
I don't see one or the other or both, they will typically hand me off around
5-10 miles out.

If it's an ILS in IMC, they'll hand me off just outside the FAF, which is
typically 5 miles out.

If they hand me off on the late side of that curve, and I'm in a Bonanza,
still slowing down from 3 miles / minute to my approach speed of about 2
miles / minute, and I take 30 seconds to cancel IFR, switch over, and listen
on the frequency before announcing, I'm all of a sudden on a 3.5 mile final
when I announce.

The OPs message doesn't seem like an unlikely scenario, and it sounds like it
was handled just fine...

[601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> If he was IFR, ATC would have probably informed him there was traffic in
>> the pattern at his destination and might have tried to wait until he had a
>> visual before allowing him to change frequency.
>>
>
> If ATC was showing traffic at his destination he should have been advised of
> that before frequency change, but the frequency change shouldn't be delayed.
>
>

If ATC can show traffic at the destination. Where I fly, KELD Ft Worth
center can't see anything below 2000 feet. The Traffic pattern is half
that.

[Newps]

Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
>>Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have always (though my flying career is still quite young) entered
>>>on the 45. If I have to go out of my way to enter on the 45, that I
>>>what I do.
>>
>>I never do, unless my direction from the airport lends an entry on the
>>downwind. Fly past the airport just so I can get on a 45? You must be
>>joking.
>
>
> No. I am not joking. How do you enter the pattern?


The most expeditious way possible. Find a hole and fill it.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
>
>> I have always (though my flying career is still quite young) entered
>> on the 45. If I have to go out of my way to enter on the 45, that I
>> what I do.
>
>
> I never do, unless my direction from the airport lends an entry on the
> downwind. Fly past the airport just so I can get on a 45? You must be
> joking.
<...>


Isn't that what the upwind leg is for?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Judah]

601XL Builder <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in
:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> If he was IFR, ATC would have probably informed him there was traffic
>>> in the pattern at his destination and might have tried to wait until
>>> he had a visual before allowing him to change frequency.
>>>
>>
>> If ATC was showing traffic at his destination he should have been
>> advised of that before frequency change, but the frequency change
>> shouldn't be delayed.
>>
>>
>
> If ATC can show traffic at the destination. Where I fly, KELD Ft Worth
> center can't see anything below 2000 feet. The Traffic pattern is half
> that.
>

If ATC can't see the traffic, I can't imagine they would delay frequency
change, though...

[Kyle Boatright]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Erik" > wrote in message
> ...
>> RomeoMike wrote:
>>> Maybe Erik was being sarcastic?
>>
>> Exactly my point. I can understand some big jet or something that
>> can't fly the same pattern the little 150 flies, so I'll
>> accommodate them. If some other 150 comes in and wants to straight
>> in and and there's already people in the pattern, get in line, pal,
>> or wait until there's nobody to disrupt to practice long finals.
>
> My apologies. I'm usually pretty good at "getting" sarcastic, but I sure
> missed it this time.
>
> I have a real sore spot for the people that charge all of the way up to
> the barrels (on the interstates) to crowd into line, where there are lanes
> closed down, too.
> --
> Jim in NC

Me too. Somehow, they never manage to merge in front of me. No idea why...
;-)

KB

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote

> Me too. Somehow, they never manage to merge in front of me. No idea
> why...

I've been know to do the rolling roadblock bit, on occasion.

I remember the rule of the older car always wins. Mine is 10 years old with
200 thousand on it. I win!
--
Jim in NC

[Jon Woellhaf]

Neither of you specified the runway?

"Erik" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had an opportunity to go head to head with someone
> once. I was in the established pattern, there were about
> 3 or 4 of us. I called my turn to base. Shortly after,
> this guy announces base.
>
> I'm looking around like my head was detached from my body.
> I called and asked if he really had announced base because
> I can't find anyone. He never answers.
>
> I'm still looking and turn final. I announce my position
> and he announces final.
>
> Lo and behold, there he is, about a mile away from me coming
> from the opposite direction. I move over to the right a bit
> and stop my descent. Someone told him that he was opposite
> the calm wind runway. He announces he's leaving the area and
> splits.
>
> I go around and do it all again.
>
> (Note to self: Remember that yours isn't the only pattern,
> there's another on the other runway)
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Erik" > wrote in message
...
>
> Exactly my point. I can understand some big jet or something that
> can't fly the same pattern the little 150 flies, so I'll
> accommodate them. If some other 150 comes in and wants to straight
> in and and there's already people in the pattern, get in line, pal,
> or wait until there's nobody to disrupt to practice long finals.
>

An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is a simplistic view of things. Yes it is disrupting, and yes I
> would make room. Even if it is not the "right way" of doing things.
> I have always (though my flying career is still quite young) entered
> on the 45. If I have to go out of my way to enter on the 45, that I
> what I do. Would I cut someone off on a disruptive straight in, no.
> Are they in the wrong, IMHO yes they are, but I can't argue about it
> if I am dead.
>

It is the "right way" of doing things, straight-ins are not disruptive.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> WEEEeeeeellll, come to think of it......yeah. Yeah, that pretty much
> sums it up, for the most part. There being exceptions and all.
>
> If you come to the playground, you should make nice with everyone
> instead of telling them to all hold off, now that you're here and
> all. Especially since some of them might not have radios.
>

Those already at the playground should make nice by properly accommodating
the aircraft on the straight-in approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
>
> No matter how you want to look at it, if there are already some planes
> in the pattern a straight-in approach is disruptive.
>

No more than entering on a 45 degree turn to downwind is.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:13:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> No matter how you want to look at it, if there are already some planes
>> in the pattern a straight-in approach is disruptive.
>>
>
>No more than entering on a 45 degree turn to downwind is.
>

I'd say, that cuts directly to the core of the issue of straight-in
arrivals at uncontrolled fields.

Perhaps the misunderstanding about this issue is a result of most VFR
pilots not having been instructed to use a straight-in approach at
uncontrolled fields, because the of the necessity of observing the
wind direction indicator before joining the pattern, and VFR pilots
relative unfamiliarity with straight-ins due to always being
instructed to report downwind at Class Ds.

I would venture a guess, that most IFR rated pilots understand how the
landing pattern works.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Erik" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Exactly my point. I can understand some big jet or something that
> > can't fly the same pattern the little 150 flies, so I'll
> > accommodate them. If some other 150 comes in and wants to straight
> > in and and there's already people in the pattern, get in line, pal,
> > or wait until there's nobody to disrupt to practice long finals.
> >
>
> An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.

Not if he is 5 mile out! I prefer the overhead approach, so I can
determine the least disruptive arrival. You approach at pattern
altitude, down the runway, check for traffic on downwind and break to
the downwind. That way, you are not charging into traffic turning base
to final, while you are watching for the airspeed to diminish to drop
the gear, wait for "gear safe" and set up landing. IMHO, the straight in
ranks among the "least preferred" of approaches.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:59:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>:

>An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.

Aren't you overlooking the altitude of the aircraft?



http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3ae4603a89b0ba22c31da6fb79cdcf30&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7
§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(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.

(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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Aren't you overlooking the altitude of the aircraft?
>

No.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 4:11 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > WEEEeeeeellll, come to think of it......yeah. Yeah, that pretty much
> > sums it up, for the most part. There being exceptions and all.
>
> > If you come to the playground, you should make nice with everyone
> > instead of telling them to all hold off, now that you're here and
> > all. Especially since some of them might not have radios.
>
> Those already at the playground should make nice by properly accommodating
> the aircraft on the straight-in approach.

I guess that depends on your definition of "properly". (Oh, Mr.
Hotshot wants to come in, and he's too important to join the circle
properly, like the rest of us. Better get out of his way!)

Having seen this discussion numerous other places, I conclude that it
will never be "settled".

I expect there are times when a straight-in is appropriate. In the
C172, C182, and the like that I fly, I can't imagine what that would
be (short of emergencies, but let's not clutter up the discussion).
Frankly, my total time is low enough that I'm not likely to do
anything not by the book, if I can help it.

In large airports that are still non-towered (after hours, etc.) you
might make a case, if you have a large aircraft. I don't know what
that case would be though.

In general, I view straight-ins the same way I view cutting in line at
a theater or whatever: there may be times, but in general it is at
least rude; more likely it can also be unsafe. It's "calling dibs",
and challenging others to accomodate you. There are too many
plausible situations where you won't be seen (necessary if the other
aircraft are NORDO). You could be too far away for someone turning
downwind to base or base to final to see.

[Erik]

Morgans wrote:

> My apologies. I'm usually pretty good at "getting" sarcastic, but I sure
> missed it this time.
>
> I have a real sore spot for the people that charge all of the way up to the
> barrels (on the interstates) to crowd into line, where there are lanes
> closed down, too.

If you thought I was serious and didn't say anything, I'd go ahead and
think it's ok to walk on you. I don't have much respect for doormats.

Your traffic example is poignant (sp?). We've got alot of that here
and the damned yuppie in the BMW (Break My Windows) is always better
than we regular folk that are patiently waiting our turn.

[Erik]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:

> Neither of you specified the runway?

Good point. No, we didn't. Standard practice around
here is to announce on entry to the pattern. After that,
everyone is using the same runway so it's never too big
of a deal.

Good practice, though, I'll make note.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:39:57 -0700, Erik >
wrote in >:

>Good practice, though, I'll make note.

You'll find a lot more information on Traffic Advisory Practices at
Airports without Operating Control Towers here:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C54E50252A7FA56D862569D8007804BA?OpenDocument

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Erik > posted:

> Jon Woellhaf wrote:
>
>> Neither of you specified the runway?
>
> Good point. No, we didn't. Standard practice around
> here is to announce on entry to the pattern. After that,
> everyone is using the same runway so it's never too big
> of a deal.
>
> Good practice, though, I'll make note.
>
It really is a good idea, especially at fields with more than one runway
and no established pattern. People can come and go from any direction.
Keep your eyes open, communicate clearly, and it's not a problem. I'm off
to do some practice at just such a field in a couple of hours.

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>
> It really is a good idea, especially at fields with more than one runway
> and no established pattern.
>

Every airport has an established pattern.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> It really is a good idea, especially at fields with more than one
>> runway and no established pattern.
>>
>
> Every airport has an established pattern.
>
Look up Lost Nation Municipal airport (LNN). There is only a pattern
altitude. Direction is up to the pilot.

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Look up Lost Nation Municipal airport (LNN). There is only a pattern
> altitude. Direction is up to the pilot.
>

That's not correct. When approaching to land LNN each pilot of an airplane
must make all turns of that airplane to the left .

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 13:13:18 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>Where is that established?

Unless you see 'RT' in the information block on the sectional chart,
the traffic is left.

[Sylvain]

Neil Gould wrote:

> Where is that established? Apparently, you are aware of something that the
> CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know.

14 CFR 91.126

--Sylvain

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Look up Lost Nation Municipal airport (LNN). There is only a pattern
>> altitude. Direction is up to the pilot.
>>
>
> That's not correct. When approaching to land LNN each pilot of an
> airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left .
>
Where is that established? Apparently, you are aware of something that the
CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know. While most of the time
people fly left traffic, it certainly isn't what happens all of the time.

Neil

[Denny]

On May 1, 1:56 pm, Sylvain > wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
> > Where is that established? Apparently, you are aware of something that the
> > CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know.
>
> 14 CFR 91.126
>
> --Sylvain

We have had endless discussion of 91.126 before... Taken literally
you cannot even perform a RH 45 degree entry to the downwind leg
unless you are outside the airport traffic area (5 statute miles),
can't do instrument approaches with a miss at the MAP, can't do engine
out training on the upwind side of the runway, and so on...

Like many of the regs it is a bad joke...

denny

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Tue, 1 May 2007 13:13:18 -0500, "Neil Gould" asked regarding LT @
LNN:
>
>> Where is that established?
>
> Unless you see 'RT' in the information block on the sectional chart,
> the traffic is left.
>
That was my presumption, as well, until my last flight review. It puzzled
me as to why aircraft can execute right traffic at this airport (not all
that infrequently, either). The CFI claimed that LNN was an exception, and
that there was no established pattern. My BFR happens to be due this
month, so maybe I'll ask another CFI. ;-)

Neil

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Where is that established?
>

§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
airspace.

a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating
an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area
must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an
operating control tower in Class G airspace-

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the
left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot
must make all turns to the right; and

(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of
fixed-wing aircraft.

(c) Flap settings. Except when necessary for training or certification, the
pilot in command of a civil turbojet-powered aircraft must use, as a final
flap setting, the minimum certificated landing flap setting set forth in the
approved performance information in the Airplane Flight Manual for the
applicable conditions. However, each pilot in command has the final
authority and responsibility for the safe operation of the pilot's airplane,
and may use a different flap setting for that airplane if the pilot
determines that it is necessary in the interest of safety.

(d) Communications with control towers. Unless otherwise authorized or
required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on
an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way radio
communications are maintained between that aircraft and the control tower.
Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from the
airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio
fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if
weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual
contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is received.
If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply
with §91.185.

[Doc. No. 24458, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-239, 59
FR 11693, Mar. 11, 1994; Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]


>
> Apparently, you are aware of something that the
> CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know. While most of the time
> people fly left traffic, it certainly isn't what happens all of the time.
>

It appears most of them are aware.

[John Godwin]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in
t:

> Where is that established? Apparently, you are aware of something
> that the CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know. While most
> of the time people fly left traffic, it certainly isn't what
> happens all of the time.

Me thinks the CFIs there should check the AIM. Although they're not
regulatory, they show good operating practices. Does the airport
have a segmented circle?

Check 4-3-4(b)(5) and 4-3-4(c)

--

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>
> That was my presumption, as well, until my last flight review. It puzzled
> me as to why aircraft can execute right traffic at this airport (not all
> that infrequently, either). The CFI claimed that LNN was an exception, and
> that there was no established pattern. My BFR happens to be due this
> month, so maybe I'll ask another CFI. ;-)
>

Find another CFI, preferably at another school.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> We have had endless discussion of 91.126 before... Taken literally
> you cannot even perform a RH 45 degree entry to the downwind leg
> unless you are outside the airport traffic area (5 statute miles),
> can't do instrument approaches with a miss at the MAP, can't do engine
> out training on the upwind side of the runway, and so on...
>

Nothing in 91.126 precludes a miss at the MAP.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.
>>
>
> Not if he is 5 mile out!
>

Distance doesn't matter. If right-of-way is an issue the aircraft on final
has the right-of-way.

It appears you interpret "right-of-way" to mean "the next aircraft to land".
That's not what it means. Right-of-way rules come into play only if the
aircraft concerned would otherwise occupy the same piece of sky, or nearly
so. If you're on downwind when another similar aircraft announces a long
straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way shouldn't be
an issue. If it's a faster aircraft then right-of-way may well be an issue
so you'll have to extend your downwind to follow him.


>
> I prefer the overhead approach, so I can
> determine the least disruptive arrival. You approach at pattern
> altitude, down the runway, check for traffic on downwind and break to
> the downwind. That way, you are not charging into traffic turning base
> to final, while you are watching for the airspeed to diminish to drop
> the gear, wait for "gear safe" and set up landing. IMHO, the straight in
> ranks among the "least preferred" of approaches.
>

There's nothing inherently wrong with a straight in approach, it is often
the safest. The problem is many pilots that believe a full pattern should
always be flown don't properly scan for traffic.

[Jose]

> The CFI claimed that LNN was an exception, and
> that there was no established pattern.

I'd like to see where he got that idea.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, John Godwin > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
> t:
>
>> Where is that established? Apparently, you are aware of something
>> that the CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know. While most
>> of the time people fly left traffic, it certainly isn't what
>> happens all of the time.
>
> Me thinks the CFIs there should check the AIM. Although they're not
> regulatory, they show good operating practices. Does the airport
> have a segmented circle?
>
No. That detail was one of the rationales used by the CFI to make the
claim.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> That was my presumption, as well, until my last flight review. It
>> puzzled me as to why aircraft can execute right traffic at this
>> airport (not all that infrequently, either). The CFI claimed that
>> LNN was an exception, and that there was no established pattern. My
>> BFR happens to be due this month, so maybe I'll ask another CFI. ;-)
>>
>
> Find another CFI, preferably at another school.
>
If it was only a particular CFI or a school, we wouldn't be discussing it.
I fly left traffic there, as do most pilots. Most is not all.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> The CFI claimed that LNN was an exception, and
>> that there was no established pattern.
>
> I'd like to see where he got that idea.
>
He's not alone. But, it's not the CFI that make me curious... it's the
traffic that comes in flying right patterns. Not a problem, but you have
to keep your scan going.

Neil

[John Godwin[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in news:nHOZh.4712$uJ6.3886
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

> No. That detail was one of the rationales used by the CFI to make the
> claim.

That being the case, it should be left taffic.

[Erik]

Neil Gould wrote:

> Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:
>
>
>>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>Look up Lost Nation Municipal airport (LNN). There is only a pattern
>>>altitude. Direction is up to the pilot.
>>>
>>
>>That's not correct. When approaching to land LNN each pilot of an
>>airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left .
>>
>
> Where is that established? Apparently, you are aware of something that the
> CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know. While most of the time
> people fly left traffic, it certainly isn't what happens all of the time.
>
> Neil
>

Ground school again. If a traffic pattern is not established, it is
always to the left.

[Erik]

Erik wrote:

> Ground school again. If a traffic pattern is not established, it is
> always to the left.
>

I should have read the other posts before barfing this out.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I guess that depends on your definition of "properly". (Oh, Mr.
> Hotshot wants to come in, and he's too important to join the circle
> properly, like the rest of us. Better get out of his way!)
>
> Having seen this discussion numerous other places, I conclude that it
> will never be "settled".
>

I think you're right about that. There will always be those that believe
aircraft flying a full pattern have the right-of-way.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, John Godwin > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
> news:nHOZh.4712$uJ6.3886 @newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> No. That detail was one of the rationales used by the CFI to make the
>> claim.
>
> That being the case, it should be left taffic.
>
That's how I understood it, and how most of the traffic flows. Most !=
all.

Neil

[Viperdoc]

I've flown into LNN many times for gas. The pattern should be left, unless
otherwise indicated. If you're flying out of T and G, Larry and his
instructors may need some re-education.


"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
> Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> Look up Lost Nation Municipal airport (LNN). There is only a pattern
>>> altitude. Direction is up to the pilot.
>>>
>>
>> That's not correct. When approaching to land LNN each pilot of an
>> airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left .
>>
> Where is that established? Apparently, you are aware of something that the
> CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know. While most of the time
> people fly left traffic, it certainly isn't what happens all of the time.
>
> Neil
>
>
>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Viperdoc > posted:

> I've flown into LNN many times for gas. The pattern should be left,
> unless otherwise indicated. If you're flying out of T and G, Larry
> and his instructors may need some re-education.
>
I am a T & G member, and know that Larry doesn't need re-education. ;-)

As for your "unless otherwise indicated", I'm not sure what you're
suggesting.

As for the instructor that made the statement, I haven't flown with him
before or since, but for other reasons. I don't know if he's still with
T&G.

I brought this up because it is not unusual to see right traffic at LNN
(non-T&G planes, btw), and I haven't heard of anyone getting busted for
this (that lent credence to the instructor's statement). FWIW, I always
fly left traffic at LNN, regardless of what others are up to.

Neil

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Neil Gould wrote:
>
>I brought this up because it is not unusual to see right traffic at LNN
>(non-T&G planes, btw), and I haven't heard of anyone getting busted for
>this (that lent credence to the instructor's statement). FWIW, I always
>fly left traffic at LNN, regardless of what others are up to.
>

Maybe these right traffic folks were taught by the CFIs you were referring
to originally. To tell students that LNN is somehow exempt from 91.126
seems ludicrous. You implied that there is more than one instructor at that
airport that thinks this is the case.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Neil Gould]

Recently, JGalban via AviationKB.com <u32749@uwe> posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> I brought this up because it is not unusual to see right traffic at
>> LNN (non-T&G planes, btw), and I haven't heard of anyone getting
>> busted for this (that lent credence to the instructor's statement).
>> FWIW, I always fly left traffic at LNN, regardless of what others
>> are up to.
>>
>
> Maybe these right traffic folks were taught by the CFIs you were
> referring to originally. To tell students that LNN is somehow
> exempt from 91.126 seems ludicrous. You implied that there is more
> than one instructor at that airport that thinks this is the case.
>
I wouldn't know where the right traffic folks were taught, but if pilots
are not busted for flying right traffic, what does that imply? And to be
clear, I only heard one CFI say such a thing, and I have no idea whether
he is still around there.

Neil

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:14:32 +0000, Judah wrote:

> On our CNX-80's (or whatever they're called now :), you can push a button
> to monitor the standby frequency. The selected frequency will cut off the
> standby frequency if both are receiving...

Perfect.

> It's a great unit...

<Sigh> I'll have to take your word on it.

- Andrew

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Neil Gould wrote:
>
>I wouldn't know where the right traffic folks were taught, but if pilots
>are not busted for flying right traffic, what does that imply?

It doesn't imply a thing to me. I don't expect FAA cops to be hanging
around non-towered fields monitoring traffic patterns. The only time you
usually see anyone "busted" for a violation like this is after metal gets
bent.

>And to be
>clear, I only heard one CFI say such a thing, and I have no idea whether
>he is still around there.

Gotcha. In one of your earlier posts you had referred to CFIs in the
plural sense.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Judah]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:14:32 +0000, Judah wrote:
>
>> On our CNX-80's (or whatever they're called now :), you can push a button
>> to monitor the standby frequency. The selected frequency will cut off the
>> standby frequency if both are receiving...
>
> Perfect.
>
>> It's a great unit...
>
> <Sigh> I'll have to take your word on it.

They're marketed now as GNS-480 I believe. You might be able to find one on
EBay...

[Margy Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.
>>>
>>
>>Not if he is 5 mile out!
>>
>
>
> Distance doesn't matter. If right-of-way is an issue the aircraft on final
> has the right-of-way.
>
> It appears you interpret "right-of-way" to mean "the next aircraft to land".
> That's not what it means. Right-of-way rules come into play only if the
> aircraft concerned would otherwise occupy the same piece of sky, or nearly
> so. If you're on downwind when another similar aircraft announces a long
> straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way shouldn't be
> an issue. If it's a faster aircraft then right-of-way may well be an issue
> so you'll have to extend your downwind to follow him.
>
>
>
>>I prefer the overhead approach, so I can
>>determine the least disruptive arrival. You approach at pattern
>>altitude, down the runway, check for traffic on downwind and break to
>>the downwind. That way, you are not charging into traffic turning base
>>to final, while you are watching for the airspeed to diminish to drop
>>the gear, wait for "gear safe" and set up landing. IMHO, the straight in
>>ranks among the "least preferred" of approaches.
>>
>
>
> There's nothing inherently wrong with a straight in approach, it is often
> the safest. The problem is many pilots that believe a full pattern should
> always be flown don't properly scan for traffic.
>
>
I don't have a problem with folks flying a straight in as long as they
do it well. I did have issue with the twin who's first announcement was
XXXX final abeam the Cessna when I was on my 2nd pattern of my FIRST
SOLO. I think he was low and in the ground clutter when I looked up
final. About 30 seconds after he announced I say him shoot past me and
well below. When I was a student the other thing that bothered me a lot
was the instrument guys coming in on straight in and they were playing
strictly by the books, but I had NO idea what Rikki inbound meant. 5
miles out on a straight in would have made so much more sense to me!

Margy

[Matt Whiting]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not if he is 5 mile out!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Distance doesn't matter. If right-of-way is an issue the aircraft on
>> final
>> has the right-of-way.
>>
>> It appears you interpret "right-of-way" to mean "the next aircraft to
>> land".
>> That's not what it means. Right-of-way rules come into play only if the
>> aircraft concerned would otherwise occupy the same piece of sky, or
>> nearly
>> so. If you're on downwind when another similar aircraft announces a long
>> straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way
>> shouldn't be
>> an issue. If it's a faster aircraft then right-of-way may well be an
>> issue
>> so you'll have to extend your downwind to follow him.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I prefer the overhead approach, so I can
>>> determine the least disruptive arrival. You approach at pattern
>>> altitude, down the runway, check for traffic on downwind and break to
>>> the downwind. That way, you are not charging into traffic turning base
>>> to final, while you are watching for the airspeed to diminish to drop
>>> the gear, wait for "gear safe" and set up landing. IMHO, the straight in
>>> ranks among the "least preferred" of approaches.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There's nothing inherently wrong with a straight in approach, it is often
>> the safest. The problem is many pilots that believe a full pattern
>> should
>> always be flown don't properly scan for traffic.
>>
> I don't have a problem with folks flying a straight in as long as they
> do it well. I did have issue with the twin who's first announcement was
> XXXX final abeam the Cessna when I was on my 2nd pattern of my FIRST
> SOLO. I think he was low and in the ground clutter when I looked up
> final. About 30 seconds after he announced I say him shoot past me and
> well below. When I was a student the other thing that bothered me a lot
> was the instrument guys coming in on straight in and they were playing
> strictly by the books, but I had NO idea what Rikki inbound meant. 5
> miles out on a straight in would have made so much more sense to me!
>
> Margy

I was taught to make calls based on distance rather than approach fix
when practicing approaches in VMC at an uncontrolled airport for just
this reason.

Matt

[Margy Natalie]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not if he is 5 mile out!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Distance doesn't matter. If right-of-way is an issue the aircraft on
>>> final
>>> has the right-of-way.
>>>
>>> It appears you interpret "right-of-way" to mean "the next aircraft to
>>> land".
>>> That's not what it means. Right-of-way rules come into play only if the
>>> aircraft concerned would otherwise occupy the same piece of sky, or
>>> nearly
>>> so. If you're on downwind when another similar aircraft announces a
>>> long
>>> straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way
>>> shouldn't be
>>> an issue. If it's a faster aircraft then right-of-way may well be an
>>> issue
>>> so you'll have to extend your downwind to follow him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I prefer the overhead approach, so I can
>>>> determine the least disruptive arrival. You approach at pattern
>>>> altitude, down the runway, check for traffic on downwind and break to
>>>> the downwind. That way, you are not charging into traffic turning base
>>>> to final, while you are watching for the airspeed to diminish to drop
>>>> the gear, wait for "gear safe" and set up landing. IMHO, the
>>>> straight in
>>>> ranks among the "least preferred" of approaches.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's nothing inherently wrong with a straight in approach, it is
>>> often
>>> the safest. The problem is many pilots that believe a full pattern
>>> should
>>> always be flown don't properly scan for traffic.
>>>
>> I don't have a problem with folks flying a straight in as long as they
>> do it well. I did have issue with the twin who's first announcement
>> was XXXX final abeam the Cessna when I was on my 2nd pattern of my
>> FIRST SOLO. I think he was low and in the ground clutter when I
>> looked up final. About 30 seconds after he announced I say him shoot
>> past me and well below. When I was a student the other thing that
>> bothered me a lot was the instrument guys coming in on straight in and
>> they were playing strictly by the books, but I had NO idea what Rikki
>> inbound meant. 5 miles out on a straight in would have made so much
>> more sense to me!
>>
>> Margy
>
>
> I was taught to make calls based on distance rather than approach fix
> when practicing approaches in VMC at an uncontrolled airport for just
> this reason.
>
> Matt
You had a good instructor!

Margy

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> I guess that depends on your definition of "properly". (Oh, Mr.
>> Hotshot wants to come in, and he's too important to join the circle
>> properly, like the rest of us. Better get out of his way!)
>>
>> Having seen this discussion numerous other places, I conclude that it
>> will never be "settled".
>>
>
>I think you're right about that. There will always be those that believe
>aircraft flying a full pattern have the right-of-way.

I do not think ANYONE is saying that aircraft flying the proper full
pattern have right of way. Rather, they are saying it is more
appropriate is most circumstances, and in almost all cases, safer for
everyone involved.


Excellent timing from AOPA on this subject...
In my email within the past couple days I received this from AOPA:

"In his May 2003 AOPA Pilot feature, "Pattern Perfection," Thomas A.
Horne reviews preferred entries. "It's best to enter the downwind leg
of a nontowered airport's traffic pattern at midfield, on a 45-degree
interception angle. This gives you a good viewing perspective of all
legs of the pattern. You should be at pattern altitude (anywhere from
600 feet agl to 1,500 feet agl—check your airport reference for the
recommended altitude), and your downwind leg should be flown as close
as is comfortable for the airplane you're flying."

Here is a link to the full article:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2003/pattern0305.html


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[[email protected]]

On May 5, 5:59 pm, Mike 'Flyin'8' > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >> I guess that depends on your definition of "properly". (Oh, Mr.
> >> Hotshot wants to come in, and he's too important to join the circle
> >> properly, like the rest of us. Better get out of his way!)
>
> >> Having seen this discussion numerous other places, I conclude that it
> >> will never be "settled".
>
> >I think you're right about that. There will always be those that believe
> >aircraft flying a full pattern have the right-of-way.
>
> I do not think ANYONE is saying that aircraft flying the proper full
> pattern have right of way. Rather, they are saying it is more
> appropriate is most circumstances, and in almost all cases, safer for
> everyone involved.

Thank you. I wasn't saying that. I just figured Steven was baiting
me. ;<)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't have a problem with folks flying a straight in as long as they do
> it well. I did have issue with the twin who's first announcement was XXXX
> final abeam the Cessna when I was on my 2nd pattern of my FIRST SOLO. I
> think he was low and in the ground clutter when I looked up final. About
> 30 seconds after he announced I say him shoot past me and well below.
> When I was a student the other thing that bothered me a lot was the
> instrument guys coming in on straight in and they were playing strictly by
> the books, but I had NO idea what Rikki inbound meant. 5 miles out on a
> straight in would have made so much more sense to me!
>

Perhaps, but "RIKKI inbound" is far more reliable than "five miles out on a
straight-in".

[Jose]

> Perhaps, but "RIKKI inbound" is far more reliable than "five miles out on a
> straight-in".

It's not helpful to be reliably ineffective.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> It's not helpful to be reliably ineffective.
>

It's helpful to be reliably effective.

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Perhaps, but "RIKKI inbound" is far more reliable than "five miles out on
> a straight-in".

Reliable for whom? I doubt RIKKI is on a VFR sectional.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Reliable for whom?

For anyone that knows where RIKKI is. How reliable is "five miles out on a
straight-in"?


>
> I doubt RIKKI is on a VFR sectional.

Perhaps not, but many LOMs are on sectional charts.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Reliable for whom?
>
>For anyone that knows where RIKKI is. How reliable is "five miles out on a
>straight-in"?
>

I'm not sure what you're getting at. "Five miles out on a straight-in"
would seem to be understandable to any VFR or IFR traffic in the pattern.
"RIKKI inbound" is not going to mean anything to the VFR guys.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Bob Noel]

In article <72544a98bca67@uwe>, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe>
wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >> Reliable for whom?
> >
> >For anyone that knows where RIKKI is. How reliable is "five miles out on a
> >straight-in"?
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. "Five miles out on a straight-in"
> would seem to be understandable to any VFR or IFR traffic in the pattern.
> "RIKKI inbound" is not going to mean anything to the VFR guys.

perhaps identification of the runway? I don't know, I haven't been
following the entire exchange, so I'm just guessing here...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Jose]

> It's helpful to be reliably effective.

Effectively, "Rikki inbound" is reliable to a typical VFR pilot. He
will always not know where you are.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was taught to make calls based on distance rather than approach fix when
> practicing approaches in VMC at an uncontrolled airport for just this
> reason.
>

Advisory Circular 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
Operating Control Towers" provides examples of self-announce phraseologies
for various situations. It provides the following for practice instrument
approaches:

"STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME-FINAL APPROACH FIX)
INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE
FIVE STRAWN"

[Jose]

> Advisory Circular 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
> Operating Control Towers" provides examples of self-announce phraseologies
> for various situations. It provides the following for practice instrument
> approaches:
>
> "STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME-FINAL APPROACH FIX)
> INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE
> FIVE STRAWN"

Well, that says more than "IBBIE inbound". The phrase "ILS approach
runway 35" gives a hint where to look.

OTOH, "IBBIE inbound, VOR Alpha approach" gives no hint to the VFR guy.
So, I guess I disagree with AC 90-42F.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Well, that says more than "IBBIE inbound". The phrase "ILS approach
> runway 35" gives a hint where to look.
>
> OTOH, "IBBIE inbound, VOR Alpha approach" gives no hint to the VFR guy.
> So, I guess I disagree with AC 90-42F.
>

Is that because the VFR guy cannot know where IBBIE is?

Where is IBBIE?

[Jose]

> Is that because the VFR guy cannot know where IBBIE is?

It's because the VFR guy probably does not know where IBBIE is. It's
probably not on the VFR charts. It's probably not on many IFR charts.

> Where is IBBIE?

Beats the hell out of me. But somebody just called in from there,
inbound. Better watch out for him.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I was taught to make calls based on distance rather than approach fix when
>> practicing approaches in VMC at an uncontrolled airport for just this
>> reason.
>>
>
> Advisory Circular 90-42F "Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
> Operating Control Towers" provides examples of self-announce phraseologies
> for various situations. It provides the following for practice instrument
> approaches:
>
> "STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME-FINAL APPROACH FIX)
> INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE
> FIVE STRAWN"

Yes, just confirms that the FAA is as dumb in this case as they are in
defining the meaning of being "on final." This announcement has
absolutely no utility at all for a VFR pilot who has had no instrument
approach training. Heck, even an instrument at a strange field would be
clueless unless he had an approach plate handy to pull out and check.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
>
> I do not think ANYONE is saying that aircraft flying the proper full
> pattern have right of way.
>

No one in this thread is saying it explicitly, but they're certainly
implying it.


>
> Rather, they are saying it is more
> appropriate is most circumstances, and in almost all cases, safer for
> everyone involved.
>

I've heard many say that, I've yet to hear anyone make a supporting case.


>
> Excellent timing from AOPA on this subject...
> In my email within the past couple days I received this from AOPA:
>
> "In his May 2003 AOPA Pilot feature, "Pattern Perfection," Thomas A.
> Horne reviews preferred entries. "It's best to enter the downwind leg
> of a nontowered airport's traffic pattern at midfield, on a 45-degree
> interception angle. This gives you a good viewing perspective of all
> legs of the pattern. You should be at pattern altitude (anywhere from
> 600 feet agl to 1,500 feet agl-check your airport reference for the
> recommended altitude), and your downwind leg should be flown as close
> as is comfortable for the airplane you're flying."
>
> Here is a link to the full article:
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2003/pattern0305.html
>
>

Thomas A. Horne:

"Avoid straight-in finals. Yes, you can make any kind of pattern you want at
nontowered fields. But of all the transgressions against standard procedure,
the straight-in final may be the worst. Here you risk T-boning those who fly
standard patterns as they fly from base to final. This is why looking up and
down final is so important when navigating the base leg."

If T-boning occurs does it not mean the traffic flying from base to final
failed to yield the right-of-way to the traffic on final?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:72544a98bca67@uwe...
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. "Five miles out on a straight-in"
> would seem to be understandable to any VFR or IFR traffic in the pattern.
> "RIKKI inbound" is not going to mean anything to the VFR guys.
>

"Five miles out on a straight-in" should be understandable to everyone, but
it's not very reliable. "RIKKI inbound" may not be understandable to
everyone, but it is reliable.


Many pilots are very poor at estimating distance, that's what I'm getting
at. I'm an air traffic controller. Just yesterday I was observing a 1200
code approach the Class C boundary as I was vectoring a Skyhawk for a
practice ILS. Right after I called that traffic to the Skyhawk I get a call
from an inbound VFR aircraft stating he's nineteen miles southwest of the
field. I issue a beacon code and watch as the unknown VFR changes to that
code, he's now a mile inside the Class C boundary, nine miles from the
field. This is not an unusual occurrence, happens with all types of
operators, this guy was even a local.

"RIKKI inbound" tells me there's inbound traffic over RIKKI. Since I know
where RIKKI is I know where the traffic is. "Five miles out on a
straight-in" tells me there's a guy on final that believes he's five miles
out. He might be five miles out, he might be fifteen miles out, he might be
two miles out.

I prefer reports I can rely on.

[Jose]

> "Five miles out on a straight-in" should be understandable to everyone, but
> it's not very reliable. "RIKKI inbound" may not be understandable to
> everyone, but it is reliable.

Since the object is to assist in being acquired visually (aka "help
people find you in the air"), understandable but not reliable trumps
reliable but not understandable. If they can get eyeballs looking in
roughly the right direction, there's a good chance of being picked up.
But if all they know is there's "somebody" out there "somewhere", that
does not help.

> ...inbound VFR aircraft stating he's nineteen miles southwest...

At nineteen miles, "Southwest" is a big swath anyway.

> "RIKKI inbound" tells me there's inbound traffic over RIKKI. Since I know
> where RIKKI is I know where the traffic is.

And that's the difference. Controllers are looking at him on a scope,
probably with markings on it, and pilots are looking for him on the High
Resolution Plexiglass Display, and mine doesn't have RIKKI marked on it. :)

Talking to a controller, RIKKI inbound makes more sense. But as a
general call to pilots in the area, it does not.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Effectively, "Rikki inbound" is reliable to a typical VFR pilot. He will
> always not know where you are.
>

Ya think? ALWAYS not know? RIKKI does not exist in the real world. Let's
look at a real-world example, the ILS runway 31 at Houghton County Memorial
Airport in Hancock Michigan:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/chart.cfm?chart=Sectional&typ=APT&txt=cmx


Here's the call in the format specified in AC 90-42F:

"Houghton County traffic, Gulfstream one two three four alpha GALEY inbound
descending through two thousand five hundred ILS approach runway three one
Houghton County."

Should a typical VFR pilot know where the Gulfstream is?

[Jose]

> Ya think? ALWAYS not know?

A little hyperbole to make a play with the wording of your original
statement. But I stand by the general statement. Most VFR pilots won't
know where RIKKI is.

> Here's the call in the format specified in AC 90-42F:
>
> "Houghton County traffic, Gulfstream one two three four alpha GALEY inbound
> descending through two thousand five hundred ILS approach runway three one
> Houghton County."
>
> Should a typical VFR pilot know where the Gulfstream is?

In this case, the typical VFR pilot should know that an ILS is a
straight in approach. He may not know (or remember) that it is
typically a three degree glide slope, an that at 2500 feet that would
put him at ... let me see (pulls out the calculator... half a mile over
sin of three degrees, ten miles out. Is that right? Oh yeah... that's
2500 MSL, not AGL (or above ARP). Airport's a thousand feet up, so cut
it in half. Maybe five or seven miles out?

In any case, the VFR pilot should know to look for a gulfstream on long
final. Gulfstreams are fast, so however far it is, it's closer already.

What about this one?

"Hammonton traffic, Gulfstream one two three four alpha DORTH inbound
descending through one thousand seven hundred VOR Bravo approach runway
three Hammonton."

http://www.airnav.com/airport/N81

Should a typical VFR pilot know where the Gulfstream is?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Beats the hell out of me. But somebody just called in from there,
> inbound. Better watch out for him.
>

That call should make it easy for me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, just confirms that the FAA is as dumb in this case as they are in
> defining the meaning of being "on final." This announcement has
> absolutely no utility at all for a VFR pilot who has had no instrument
> approach training. Heck, even an instrument at a strange field would be
> clueless unless he had an approach plate handy to pull out and check.
>

Strawn is a fictional airport. Let's look at a real-world airport, Porter
County Airport, Valparaiso Indiana:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/chart.cfm?chart=Sectional&typ=APT&txt=vpz

Here's the call in the format specified in AC 90-42F:

"Porter County traffic, Gulfstream one two three four alpha SEDLY inbound
descending through two thousand five hundred ILS approach runway two seven
Porter County."

Does this announcement have any utility at all for a VFR pilot who has had
no instrument approach training? If your answer is no, please explain.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> If T-boning occurs does it not mean the traffic flying from base to final
> failed to yield the right-of-way to the traffic on final?

Does it matter?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does it matter?
>

Yes.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Does it matter?
>>
>
> Yes.

How?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since the object is to assist in being acquired visually (aka "help people
> find you in the air"), understandable but not reliable trumps reliable but
> not understandable. If they can get eyeballs looking in roughly the right
> direction, there's a good chance of being picked up. But if all they know
> is there's "somebody" out there "somewhere", that does not help.
>

The object is to convey position and intentions to other users, a reliable
position report that's useful to some trumps an unreliable report that's
useful to none.


>
> At nineteen miles, "Southwest" is a big swath anyway.
>

The purpose was to illustrate how poor many pilots are at estimating
distance.



>
> And that's the difference. Controllers are looking at him on a scope,
> probably with markings on it, and pilots are looking for him on the High
> Resolution Plexiglass Display, and mine doesn't have RIKKI marked on it.
> :)
>

I was speaking as a pilot there.


>
> Talking to a controller, RIKKI inbound makes more sense. But as a general
> call to pilots in the area, it does not.
>

So let them ask.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> A little hyperbole to make a play with the wording of your original
> statement. But I stand by the general statement. Most VFR pilots won't
> know where RIKKI is.
>

Some will, those that don't can simply ask.


>
> In this case, the typical VFR pilot should know that an ILS is a straight
> in approach. He may not know (or remember) that it is typically a three
> degree glide slope, an that at 2500 feet that would put him at ... let me
> see (pulls out the calculator... half a mile over sin of three degrees,
> ten miles out. Is that right? Oh yeah... that's 2500 MSL, not AGL (or
> above ARP). Airport's a thousand feet up, so cut it in half. Maybe five
> or seven miles out?
>
> In any case, the VFR pilot should know to look for a gulfstream on long
> final. Gulfstreams are fast, so however far it is, it's closer already.
>

Do typical VFR pilots fly without charts?


>
> What about this one?
>
> "Hammonton traffic, Gulfstream one two three four alpha DORTH inbound
> descending through one thousand seven hundred VOR Bravo approach runway
> three Hammonton."
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/N81
>
> Should a typical VFR pilot know where the Gulfstream is?
>

No. But any pilot that knows where DORTH is will know where the Gulfstream
is. A report useful to some trumps a report useful to none.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> How?
>

Accident analysis advances safety.

[Jose]

> The object is to convey position and intentions to other users, a reliable
> position report that's useful to some trumps an unreliable report that's
> useful to none.

No, the object is not to "convey position". It is to "enable visual
aquisition". A position and intention report is of limited usefulness
if I can't see the traffic. But if I can, then the sighting trumps the
report.

>> Talking to a controller, RIKKI inbound makes more sense. But as a general
>> call to pilots in the area, it does not.
> So let them ask.

On a busy 122.9, that's not easy. Also, by the time the information is
conveyed, the aircraft is elsewhere.

> I was speaking as a pilot there.

As an IFR pilot who's also a controller and knows where RIKKI is.

> Do typical VFR pilots fly without charts?

Yes, they typically fly without the kinds of charts that would show the
information, and further, that information is hard to find in flight
even if it's on a VFR chart. It also takes eyeballs away from the
window, which is the last thing you want in the pattern.

Well, at least the last thing I want.

> But any pilot that knows where DORTH is will know where the Gulfstream
> is. A report useful to some trumps a report useful to none.

A report that is useful to few might as well be useful to none.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How?
>>
>
> Accident analysis advances safety.

We already know how to prevent that scenario.

[Dave[_5_]]

> So let them ask.

Asking questions on the CTAF is not a good idea. Neither is looking at
a chart or an approach plate when I am flying the
pattern. As a VFR pilot, I know nothing about the sort of approach the
aircraft in question is flying - nor do I care. All I
want to know is where is he and when will he arrive.. Since anybody
flying IFR no doubt has a GPS that will provide
an instant distance and ETE readout, it seems to me that an
announcement like the following would be understandable to
everyone: "Cessna 1234 IFR inbound for landing runway 1 XYZ 5 miles
out ETE 2 minutes" would fill the bill. With that
info I know where to look and when to expect him. It would also be
nice to know if this inbound pilot is really landing or
intends to declare a missed approach (which folks who practice IFR
approaches in VFR condtitions usually do).

Comments?

David Johnson

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> We already know how to prevent that scenario.
>

How?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> We already know how to prevent that scenario.
>>
>
> How?
>
>

Fly a proper rectangular pattern and not a 10 mile long final.

[Cubdriver]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:33:27 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>If T-boning occurs does it not mean the traffic flying from base to final
>failed to yield the right-of-way to the traffic on final?

No, in this case the writer is saying that the traffic on final
T-boned the the plane turning final from base.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I do not think ANYONE is saying that aircraft flying the proper full
>> pattern have right of way.
>>
>
> No one in this thread is saying it explicitly, but they're certainly
> implying it.
>
>
>>
>> Rather, they are saying it is more
>> appropriate is most circumstances, and in almost all cases, safer for
>> everyone involved.
>>
>
> I've heard many say that, I've yet to hear anyone make a supporting case.
>
>
>>


Aircraft flying a full pattern do have the right of way.

Reporting points should be done in miles at uncontrolled airports.

Unless a practice IFR approaches can be made without interruption of pattern
traffic, they should divert to upwind leg upon encountering traffic.

Everyone should consider aircraft may be correctly operating without radio
communications.

Left traffic should be observed unless markings at the airport, on sectional
charts or airport directories specify otherwise.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74C9017C9457E4AB862569D800780551?OpenDocument&Highlight=90-66

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9704.html

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...

>
> Do typical VFR pilots fly without charts?
>

Typical VFR pilots often fly without radios.

[Denny]

Hmmm, so only full patterns are sanctioned and only to the runway
favored by the wind...
So how do I do crosswind TOL.. <actually a significant % of my TOL are
crosswind - deliberately>
And overhead power off emergency approaches...
And single engine approaches under the hood...
And circling approaches under the hood...
And so on...

All these maneuvers are legal and appropriate training procedures....
I already know what I do <which has worked for me for over a half
century> I just wanna know what the experts do...

denny

[Maxwell]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hmmm, so only full patterns are sanctioned and only to the runway
> favored by the wind...
> So how do I do crosswind TOL.. <actually a significant % of my TOL are
> crosswind - deliberately>
> And overhead power off emergency approaches...
> And single engine approaches under the hood...
> And circling approaches under the hood...
> And so on...
>
> All these maneuvers are legal and appropriate training procedures....
> I already know what I do <which has worked for me for over a half
> century> I just wanna know what the experts do...
>
> denny
>

I don't know, I'm just posting the info Steven was looking for and how it
reads to me. I actually found this by accident while doing an unrelated
Goggle search.

The way I read it you can still do most any kind of approach as long as you
don't disrupt normal traffic in the pattern. But the way I read it, with
regards to right of way, traffic using the rectangular pattern listed in the
AIM is said to be favored.

[Cubdriver]

On 29 May 2007 04:52:23 -0700, Denny > wrote:

>All these maneuvers are legal and appropriate training procedures....

Sure they are. And so is making a right turn after stop at a red light
in most places --- but remember that the other guy has the right of
way!

[Mark T. Dame]

Cubdriver wrote:
> On 29 May 2007 04:52:23 -0700, Denny > wrote:
>
>> All these maneuvers are legal and appropriate training procedures....
>
> Sure they are. And so is making a right turn after stop at a red light
> in most places --- but remember that the other guy has the right of
> way!

That's the key, the way I read it. Traffic flying the full recommended
pattern has the right of way of traffic not flying the full pattern.
That includes those making base leg entries, straight into downwind
entries, and straight in approaches (both visual and instrument, be it
practice or actual). (All of that assumes the airport is above the VFR
minimums. If it isn't, then IFR rules apply and "right of way" is
theoretically a non-issue because ATC handle sequencing the departures
and arrivals.)

Basically, you can fly whatever you want, but only if it doesn't
conflict with traffic established in the recommended pattern. That
holds true any time you enter the pattern. Even when using the
recommended 45 degree mid-field downwind entry, traffic already on the
downwind (presumably from a take off staying in the pattern) has the
right of way and it's your responsibility to time your entry so as not
to interfere with existing traffic. So for a straight in approach, if
there's no one in the pattern or you can make the approach without
interfering with those who are, then go for it. If not, it's your
responsibility to figure out how to sequence yourself into the traffic
flow without causing a conflict.

All of that said, flying a proper pattern doesn't give you the right to
cut off someone flying a straight in approach. That's the gist of the
FAA ruling someone posted elsewhere: the guy was violated for
intentionally cutting off aircraft making straight in approaches or
really long downwinds. That's a no-no.

Finally, there is no FAR one way or the other. Just the AC and the ASF
publication. Bottom line: the traffic pattern is no place for a
****ing contest. Just be courteous to those around you and pay
attention for those who aren't.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Many UNIX utilities have undocumented limitations..."
-- Programming perl, Larry Wall and Randal L. Schwartz

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> No, the object is not to "convey position". It is to "enable visual
> acquisition".
>

The object is to convey position.


AIM

4-1-9. Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control
Towers

g. Self-Announce Position and/or Intentions

1. General. Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their
position or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated
CTAF. This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS
on the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used under
any condition.


>
> A position and intention report is of limited usefulness if
> I can't see the traffic. But if I can, then the sighting trumps the
> report.
>

An accurate position and intention report is useful even when the traffic
cannot be seen. If a Skyhawk reports "RIKKI inbound" when I'm on downwind I
know it's not a factor for me. If the report is "five miles out on a
straight-in" I know I better not turn base until I spot the traffic.


>
> On a busy 122.9, that's not easy.
>

Yes it is. Key the mic, say "Where's RIKKI?" Very easy


>
> Also, by the time the information is
> conveyed, the aircraft is elsewhere.
>

Yes, in the short time it takes to convey the information the aircraft has
moved a bit inside RIKKI.


>
> Yes, they typically fly without the kinds of charts that would show the
> information, and further, that information is hard to find in flight even
> if it's on a VFR chart. It also takes eyeballs away from the window,
> which is the last thing you want in the pattern.
>

The information is shown on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart and in the
Airport/Facility Directory. Do typical VFR pilots not use these materials
to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight?


>
> A report that is useful to few might as well be useful to none.
>

Nonsense.

[Mark T. Dame]

Dave wrote:
> Since anybody
> flying IFR no doubt has a GPS that will provide
> an instant distance and ETE readout,

I wouldn't assume everyone flying IFR has a GPS. I have access to six
aircraft in the two flying clubs I'm in. Two of them (the IFR trainer
in each club) don't have GPS. I don't want to get into a debate on
whether or not an IFR trainer should have a GPS. The planes aren't my
personal aircraft, so such a debate would be pointless. The point is
people are using them to get their instrument rating and they don't have
GPS. That is probably typical of IFR trainers as most FBO's as well.
No one wants to put $10K+ into a trainer to add an instrument approved
GPS receiver.

So, it's better to assume that the pilot doesn't have an accurate
distance or ETE.


> it seems to me that an
> announcement like the following would be understandable to
> everyone: "Cessna 1234 IFR inbound for landing runway 1 XYZ 5 miles
> out ETE 2 minutes" would fill the bill. With that
> info I know where to look and when to expect him. It would also be
> nice to know if this inbound pilot is really landing or
> intends to declare a missed approach (which folks who practice IFR
> approaches in VFR condtitions usually do).

If you are flying an instrument approach on a VFR day and there are
other planes in the pattern, you should break off your approach and fly
the miss early if you are going to conflict with the other traffic. If
not, then it doesn't matter.

For the student pilot who doesn't even know what the VOR-29 approach is,
much less the location of RIKKI, TIKKI, or MIKKI, the IFR practice pilot
should provide an estimated distance. Your approach plate tells you
what that distance is, so there's no guessing and no relying on a GPS or
LORAN or other RNAV equipment that you may or may not have.

For the VFR guy who is too good to fly the pattern with the rest of us
schmucks, get over yourself. If that extra .1 hour flying a full
pattern is more important to you than your (and everyone else's) safety,
then you shouldn't be flying anyway.

If you absolutely must fly a straight in approach, time it so you can
slip in an open spot in the pattern without conflicting with those
already established. And know where five miles and two miles out from
the field are. If you are so good that you don't have to fly a pattern,
at least be able to accurately tell the rest of us where you are without
resorting to IFR fixes that less than half of the pilot population is
likely to know.

(Note to Dave: after rereading this it appears I'm jumping on your
post. That's not the case. I'm merely trying to expand on your point.)


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"In short, just as the Multics mentality of careful access
control shows up throughout Unix, the cretinous CP/M mentality
of uncontrolled havoc shows up in DOS and all its mutant children."
-- Tom Christiansen

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Asking questions on the CTAF is not a good idea.
>

Why not?

[Jose]

> The object is to convey position.

The =object= is to enable visual aquisition. The =method= is by
conveying position.

> An accurate position and intention report is useful even when the traffic
> cannot be seen. If a Skyhawk reports "RIKKI inbound" when I'm on downwind I
> know it's not a factor for me.

So such a report is useful to =you=, an IFR pilot who is also a
controller and happens to know where RIKKI is. RIKKI might be the last
step-down fix, a mile from the threshold, on an approach with which you
are not familiar, at an airport at which you are newly arriving, and
whose approach plate is in your flight kit in the back seat. In that
case, that skyhawk definately is a factor for you.

>> On a busy 122.9, that's not easy.
> Yes it is. Key the mic, say "Where's RIKKI?" Very easy

The other airplanes hear "squeal...key" and don't respond. Or they hear
"where's RIKKI" and key the mike. Then you hear "squeal miles squeal
other traffic squeal advise two"

> The information is shown on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart and in the
> Airport/Facility Directory. Do typical VFR pilots not use these materials
> to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight?

They typically become familiar with what they consider relevant
information. They do not typically memorize it. No pilot becomes
familiar with "all available" information. That's a silly impossibility
designed so that the FAA can hang you if they want.

Typically the information is only on an approach plate. VFR pilots
typically do not review approach plates. Some may never have even seen
one. It is "information", it is "available". And no I don't think it
is reasonable to expect a VFR pilot to have become familiar with all IFR
approaches into an airport.

>> A report that is useful to few might as well be useful to none.
> Nonsense.

I'll see your nonsense and raise you a "tosh on that!". :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave[_5_]]

On May 29, 2:48 pm, "Mark T. Dame" > wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > Since anybody
> > flying IFR no doubt has a GPS that will provide
> > an instant distance and ETE readout,
>
> I wouldn't assume everyone flying IFR has a GPS. I have access to six
> aircraft in the two flying clubs I'm in. Two of them (the IFR trainer
> in each club) don't have GPS. I don't want to get into a debate on
> whether or not an IFR trainer should have a GPS. The planes aren't my
> personal aircraft, so such a debate would be pointless. The point is
> people are using them to get their instrument rating and they don't have
> GPS. That is probably typical of IFR trainers as most FBO's as well.
> No one wants to put $10K+ into a trainer to add an instrument approved
> GPS receiver.
>
> So, it's better to assume that the pilot doesn't have an accurate
> distance or ETE.
>

I agree that not everyone has a GPS - but for myself I wouldn't be
without a portable unit - for situational awareness as
well as navigation. I have VOR/DME/RNAV in my plane, but seldom use it
anymore.


> > it seems to me that an
> > announcement like the following would be understandable to
> > everyone: "Cessna 1234 IFR inbound for landing runway 1 XYZ 5 miles
> > out ETE 2 minutes" would fill the bill. With that
> > info I know where to look and when to expect him. It would also be
> > nice to know if this inbound pilot is really landing or
> > intends to declare a missed approach (which folks who practice IFR
> > approaches in VFR condtitions usually do).
>
> If you are flying an instrument approach on a VFR day and there are
> other planes in the pattern, you should break off your approach and fly
> the miss early if you are going to conflict with the other traffic. If
> not, then it doesn't matter.
>
> For the student pilot who doesn't even know what the VOR-29 approach is,
> much less the location of RIKKI, TIKKI, or MIKKI, the IFR practice pilot
> should provide an estimated distance. Your approach plate tells you
> what that distance is, so there's no guessing and no relying on a GPS or
> LORAN or other RNAV equipment that you may or may not have.
>
> For the VFR guy who is too good to fly the pattern with the rest of us
> schmucks, get over yourself. If that extra .1 hour flying a full
> pattern is more important to you than your (and everyone else's) safety,
> then you shouldn't be flying anyway.
>
> If you absolutely must fly a straight in approach, time it so you can
> slip in an open spot in the pattern without conflicting with those
> already established. And know where five miles and two miles out from
> the field are. If you are so good that you don't have to fly a pattern,
> at least be able to accurately tell the rest of us where you are without
> resorting to IFR fixes that less than half of the pilot population is
> likely to know.
>
> (Note to Dave: after rereading this it appears I'm jumping on your
> post. That's not the case. I'm merely trying to expand on your point.)

No offense taken - I basically agree with your comments. You have
identified the problem: the arrogant a**holes
out there who seem to think that everybody else is obliged to get out
of their way when they decide to come
barreling in.

David Johnson

[Dave[_5_]]

On May 29, 3:30 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > The object is to convey position.
>
> The =object= is to enable visual aquisition. The =method= is by
> conveying position.
>
> > An accurate position and intention report is useful even when the traffic
> > cannot be seen. If a Skyhawk reports "RIKKI inbound" when I'm on downwind I
> > know it's not a factor for me.
>
> So such a report is useful to =you=, an IFR pilot who is also a
> controller and happens to know where RIKKI is. RIKKI might be the last
> step-down fix, a mile from the threshold, on an approach with which you
> are not familiar, at an airport at which you are newly arriving, and
> whose approach plate is in your flight kit in the back seat. In that
> case, that skyhawk definately is a factor for you.
>
> >> On a busy 122.9, that's not easy.
> > Yes it is. Key the mic, say "Where's RIKKI?" Very easy
>
> The other airplanes hear "squeal...key" and don't respond. Or they hear
> "where's RIKKI" and key the mike. Then you hear "squeal miles squeal
> other traffic squeal advise two"
>
> > The information is shown on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart and in the
> > Airport/Facility Directory. Do typical VFR pilots not use these materials
> > to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight?
>
> They typically become familiar with what they consider relevant
> information. They do not typically memorize it. No pilot becomes
> familiar with "all available" information. That's a silly impossibility
> designed so that the FAA can hang you if they want.
>
> Typically the information is only on an approach plate. VFR pilots
> typically do not review approach plates. Some may never have even seen
> one. It is "information", it is "available". And no I don't think it
> is reasonable to expect a VFR pilot to have become familiar with all IFR
> approaches into an airport.
>
> >> A report that is useful to few might as well be useful to none.
> > Nonsense.
>
> I'll see your nonsense and raise you a "tosh on that!". :)
>
> Jose
> --
> There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
> know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
> they push the button.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Good comments, Jose - I fully agree.

David Johnson

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
>
> No, in this case the writer is saying that the traffic on final
> T-boned the the plane turning final from base.
>

I know what the writer is saying. The traffic on final has the
right-of-way, T-boning cannot occur unless the traffic flying from base to
final fails to yield.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, in this case the writer is saying that the traffic on final
>> T-boned the the plane turning final from base.
>>
>
> I know what the writer is saying. The traffic on final has the
> right-of-way, T-boning cannot occur unless the traffic flying from base to
> final fails to yield.
>

Why does the aircraft on final have the right-of-way?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Aircraft flying a full pattern do have the right of way.
>

That's not correct.

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

(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.


>
> Reporting points should be done in miles at uncontrolled airports.
>

Why?


>
> Everyone should consider aircraft may be correctly operating without radio
> communications.
>

Yes, or incorrectly operating with radio communications.


> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74C9017C9457E4AB862569D800780551?OpenDocument&Highlight=90-66
>

Did you bother to read any of that? Paragraph 8.k states; "Throughout the
traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in FAR Part 91.113."


>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf
>

From the Appendix, page 13"

"(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."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Typical VFR pilots often fly without radios.
>

No they don't. While there are VFR pilots who often fly without radios that
is atypical today.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Unless a practice IFR approaches can be made without interruption of
> pattern traffic, they should divert to upwind leg upon encountering
> traffic.
>

What about non-practice IFR approaches? What are they supposed to do to
avoid interruption of pattern traffic?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I don't know, I'm just posting the info Steven was looking for and how it
> reads to me. I actually found this by accident while doing an unrelated
> Goggle search.
>

Steven wasn't looking for the info, Steven has all the info.


>
> The way I read it you can still do most any kind of approach as long as
> you don't disrupt normal traffic in the pattern. But the way I read it,
> with
> regards to right of way, traffic using the rectangular pattern listed in
> the AIM is said to be favored.
>

Instead of concentrating on material that is not regulatory you might
consider examining some material that is. I suggest FARs 91.113 and 91.126
for starters.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Mark T. Dame wrote:
>
>For the student pilot who doesn't even know what the VOR-29 approach is,
>much less the location of RIKKI, TIKKI, or MIKKI, the IFR practice pilot
>should provide an estimated distance. Your approach plate tells you
>what that distance is, so there's no guessing and no relying on a GPS or
>LORAN or other RNAV equipment that you may or may not have.
>

Bingo! This would seem to throw out the argument that using "RIKKI" is
more accurate than "x mile final". The pilot flying the approach should
have a fairly accurate idea of his distance to the runway. By giving the
distance instead of a fix, it is more likely that all pilots in the pattern
will know where he is, without creating unnecessary chatter on the CTAF.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> Instead of concentrating on material that is not regulatory you might
> consider examining some material that is. I suggest FARs 91.113 and
> 91.126 for starters.

Do you actually remember all this stuff, or do you have to search for it
before you post?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Do you actually remember all this stuff, or do you have to search for it
> before you post?
>

I remember much of it, some things I have to verify before posting.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Do you actually remember all this stuff, or do you have to search for
> > it before you post?
> >
>
> I remember much of it, some things I have to verify before posting.

That is quite impressive really. Especially considering it is all I can do
to remember my way home from work half the time. :-)

Do you have to reference this information for work regularly?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Do you have to reference this information for work regularly?
>

Nope.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's the key, the way I read it. Traffic flying the full recommended
> pattern has the right of way of traffic not flying the full pattern. That
> includes those making base leg entries, straight into downwind entries,
> and straight in approaches (both visual and instrument, be it practice or
> actual). (All of that assumes the airport is above the VFR minimums. If
> it isn't, then IFR rules apply and "right of way" is theoretically a
> non-issue because ATC handle sequencing the departures and arrivals.)
>

The airport can be above VFR minimums but still require an instrument
approach, imagine good visibility under a low overcast. What's an arriving
IFR aircraft supposed to do if he's still in cloud at the circling MDA and
there are VFR aircraft in the pattern?


>
> Basically, you can fly whatever you want, but only if it doesn't conflict
> with traffic established in the recommended pattern. That holds true any
> time you enter the pattern. Even when using the recommended 45 degree
> mid-field downwind entry, traffic already on the downwind (presumably from
> a take off staying in the pattern) has the right of way and it's your
> responsibility to time your entry so as not to interfere with existing
> traffic. So for a straight in approach, if there's no one in the pattern
> or you can make the approach without interfering with those who are, then
> go for it. If not, it's your responsibility to figure out how to sequence
> yourself into the traffic flow without causing a conflict.
>
> All of that said, flying a proper pattern doesn't give you the right to
> cut off someone flying a straight in approach. That's the gist of the FAA
> ruling someone posted elsewhere: the guy was violated for intentionally
> cutting off aircraft making straight in approaches or really long
> downwinds. That's a no-no.
>
> Finally, there is no FAR one way or the other. Just the AC and the ASF
> publication. Bottom line: the traffic pattern is no place for a ****ing
> contest. Just be courteous to those around you and pay attention for
> those who aren't.
>

FAR 91.113(g) does not exist? Where the hell do you get your information?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Why does the aircraft on final have the right-of-way?
>

Primarily because FAR 91.113(g) says aircraft on final have the
right-of-way.

[Mark T. Dame]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's the key, the way I read it. Traffic flying the full recommended
>> pattern has the right of way of traffic not flying the full pattern. That
>> includes those making base leg entries, straight into downwind entries,
>> and straight in approaches (both visual and instrument, be it practice or
>> actual). (All of that assumes the airport is above the VFR minimums. If
>> it isn't, then IFR rules apply and "right of way" is theoretically a
>> non-issue because ATC handle sequencing the departures and arrivals.)
>
> The airport can be above VFR minimums but still require an instrument
> approach, imagine good visibility under a low overcast. What's an arriving
> IFR aircraft supposed to do if he's still in cloud at the circling MDA and
> there are VFR aircraft in the pattern?

While I suppose that's possible, to be VFR, the ceiling at the airport
should be at least a 1,000' (500' above the ground and 500' below the
clouds). All the non-precision approaches I'm familiar with have an MDA
lower than that.


>> Finally, there is no FAR one way or the other. Just the AC and the ASF
>> publication. Bottom line: the traffic pattern is no place for a ****ing
>> contest. Just be courteous to those around you and pay attention for
>> those who aren't.
>
> FAR 91.113(g) does not exist? Where the hell do you get your information?

FAR 91.113(g) only says that the aircraft on final has the right of way.
It doesn't say anything about the pattern. It also doesn't say
anything about other aircraft having to wait for a guy on a ten mile
final to land before they can.

Look at it this way. If you are in a car at a stop sign at an
intersection. The crossing street has no stop sign. Cars on the
crossing street have the right of way over cars at the stop sign. If
you see a car coming a half a mile away, you don't have to wait for him.
If he's 100' away, you do.

Right of way only comes into play for conflict resolution. If there is
no conflict, there's no right of way decision to make.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"A brute force solution that works is better than an elegant
solution that doesn't work."

[Mark T. Dame]

Mark T. Dame wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> That's the key, the way I read it. Traffic flying the full recommended
>>> pattern has the right of way of traffic not flying the full pattern.
>>> That
>>> includes those making base leg entries, straight into downwind entries,
>>> and straight in approaches (both visual and instrument, be it
>>> practice or
>>> actual). (All of that assumes the airport is above the VFR
>>> minimums. If
>>> it isn't, then IFR rules apply and "right of way" is theoretically a
>>> non-issue because ATC handle sequencing the departures and arrivals.)
>>
>> The airport can be above VFR minimums but still require an instrument
>> approach, imagine good visibility under a low overcast. What's an
>> arriving IFR aircraft supposed to do if he's still in cloud at the
>> circling MDA and there are VFR aircraft in the pattern?
>
> While I suppose that's possible, to be VFR, the ceiling at the airport
> should be at least a 1,000' (500' above the ground and 500' below the
> clouds). All the non-precision approaches I'm familiar with have an MDA
> lower than that.

I didn't finish my thought:

If you are on a precision approach in those conditions, you will be at
least 2.5 miles out when you break out (on a steep glideslope).
Normally you will be more than 3 miles out. In either type of approach,
you have plenty of time circle to land if the pattern is full.

So, if there is VFR traffic in the pattern, an arriving IFR plane has
time to transition to VFR and join the pattern without disrupting the
flow. If conditions are so bad that the arriving aircraft can't
transition in time, then it's unlikely that the airport is VFR legal anyway.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"For example, no book or "owner's manual" will help you understand
why your 3 year-old daughter rubs toothpaste in your 1 year-old's
hair, or why your children hang their socks in the refrigerator."
-- Advanced C++, James O. Coplien

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:33:49 -0400, "Mark T. Dame" >
wrote in >:

>
>While I suppose that's possible, to be VFR, the ceiling at the airport
>should be at least a 1,000' (500' above the ground and 500' below the
>clouds).


Have you overlooked the fact that many, if not most, non-towered
airports lie within Class G airspace (by virtue of the magenta
vignette or not), so according to CFR 14 Part 91 §91.155(a)
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5edda206c78deab73d9b786f00376b88&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.5.33>
one is required to only remain clear of clouds during daylight hours
(not 500' below)?

Further, CFR 14 Part 91 §91.155(b)(2) Airplane. If the visibility is
less than 3 statute miles but not less than 1 statute mile during
night hours and you are operating in an airport traffic pattern within
1/2 mile of the runway, you may operate an airplane, powered
parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft clear of clouds.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> While I suppose that's possible, to be VFR, the ceiling at the airport
> should be at least a 1,000' (500' above the ground and 500' below the
> clouds). All the non-precision approaches I'm familiar with have an MDA
> lower than that.
>

A ceiling less 1000 feet puts the field below VFR minimums only if it's in a
surface area. Most uncontrolled fields are in Class G airspace where VFR
minimums for airplanes are just one mile visibility and clear of clouds.


>
> FAR 91.113(g) only says that the aircraft on final has the right of way.
> It doesn't say anything about the pattern.
>

Correct, "pattern" does not appear anywhere in the right-of-way rules.


>
> It also doesn't say anything
> about other aircraft having to wait for a guy on a ten mile final to land
> before they can.
>

Correct. Right-of-way should not be an issue in that case.


>
> Look at it this way. If you are in a car at a stop sign at an
> intersection. The crossing street has no stop sign. Cars on the crossing
> street have the right of way over cars at the stop sign. If you see a car
> coming a half a mile away, you don't have to wait for him. If he's 100'
> away, you do.
>
> Right of way only comes into play for conflict resolution. If there is no
> conflict, there's no right of way decision to make.
>

Correct. I've used similar scenarios myself to explain the right-of-way
rule.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> I didn't finish my thought:
>
> If you are on a precision approach in those conditions, you will be at
> least 2.5 miles out when you break out (on a steep glideslope). Normally
> you will be more than 3 miles out. In either type of approach, you have
> plenty of time circle to land if the pattern is full.
>

Nope. Remember, the ceiling is below the circling MDA.


>
> So, if there is VFR traffic in the pattern, an arriving IFR plane has time
> to transition to VFR and join the pattern without disrupting the flow. If
> conditions are so bad that the arriving aircraft can't transition in time,
> then it's unlikely that the airport is VFR legal anyway.
>

Nope, VFR legal require just one mile visibility.

[Jose]

> Further, CFR 14 Part 91 §91.155(b)(2) Airplane. If the visibility is
> less than 3 statute miles but not less than 1 statute mile during
> night hours and you are operating in an airport traffic pattern within
> 1/2 mile of the runway, you may operate an airplane, powered
> parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft clear of clouds.

Would this permit departing an airport, remaining clear of clouds within
half a mile of the airport, while climbing or maneuvering to an
otherwise legal VFR position? This could be useful if there are broken
low clouds over an otherwise clearing and VFR area, such as just after a
storm has passed.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> Why does the aircraft on final have the right-of-way?
>>
>
> Primarily because FAR 91.113(g) says aircraft on final have the
> right-of-way.
>
>
>

Agreed. But AC 90-66 describes "final" as the segment between base leg and
the runway. Paragraph 7e clearly states that pilots executing a "straight-in
approach", without mentioning reason for the straight-in approach, will
complete it without disrupting arriving traffic.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> I don't know, I'm just posting the info Steven was looking for and how it
>> reads to me. I actually found this by accident while doing an unrelated
>> Goggle search.
>>
>
> Steven wasn't looking for the info, Steven has all the info.

Or just thinks he does.

>
>
>>
>> The way I read it you can still do most any kind of approach as long as
>> you don't disrupt normal traffic in the pattern. But the way I read it,
>> with
>> regards to right of way, traffic using the rectangular pattern listed in
>> the AIM is said to be favored.
>>
>
> Instead of concentrating on material that is not regulatory you might
> consider examining some material that is. I suggest FARs 91.113 and
> 91.126 for starters.
>

Nothing in either of those FARs indicates you can describe "final" as being
farther away from the airport than the end of "base leg".

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That's the key, the way I read it. Traffic flying the full recommended
>> pattern has the right of way of traffic not flying the full pattern. That
>> includes those making base leg entries, straight into downwind entries,
>> and straight in approaches (both visual and instrument, be it practice or
>> actual). (All of that assumes the airport is above the VFR minimums. If
>> it isn't, then IFR rules apply and "right of way" is theoretically a
>> non-issue because ATC handle sequencing the departures and arrivals.)
>>
>
> The airport can be above VFR minimums but still require an instrument
> approach, imagine good visibility under a low overcast. What's an
> arriving IFR aircraft supposed to do if he's still in cloud at the
> circling MDA and there are VFR aircraft in the pattern?

Ref AC 90-66a, 7f. Avoid interrupting traffic in the pattern.



>
>
>>
>> Basically, you can fly whatever you want, but only if it doesn't conflict
>> with traffic established in the recommended pattern. That holds true any
>> time you enter the pattern. Even when using the recommended 45 degree
>> mid-field downwind entry, traffic already on the downwind (presumably
>> from
>> a take off staying in the pattern) has the right of way and it's your
>> responsibility to time your entry so as not to interfere with existing
>> traffic. So for a straight in approach, if there's no one in the pattern
>> or you can make the approach without interfering with those who are, then
>> go for it. If not, it's your responsibility to figure out how to
>> sequence
>> yourself into the traffic flow without causing a conflict.
>>
>> All of that said, flying a proper pattern doesn't give you the right to
>> cut off someone flying a straight in approach. That's the gist of the
>> FAA
>> ruling someone posted elsewhere: the guy was violated for intentionally
>> cutting off aircraft making straight in approaches or really long
>> downwinds. That's a no-no.
>>
>> Finally, there is no FAR one way or the other. Just the AC and the ASF
>> publication. Bottom line: the traffic pattern is no place for a ****ing
>> contest. Just be courteous to those around you and pay attention for
>> those who aren't.
>>
>
> FAR 91.113(g) does not exist? Where the hell do you get your information?

Sure it does. Look again.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> Aircraft flying a full pattern do have the right of way.
>>
>
> That's not correct.
>
> § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
>
> (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.
>
>

It is correct. AC 90-66 clairifys it very well, and 91.113 is not in
conflict.

>>
>> Reporting points should be done in miles at uncontrolled airports.
>>
>
> Why?

Per AC 90-66. 7f . Position reports on CTAF should include distance and
direction from the airport.


>
>
>>
>> Everyone should consider aircraft may be correctly operating without
>> radio
>> communications.
>>
>
> Yes, or incorrectly operating with radio communications.
>
>
>> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74C9017C9457E4AB862569D800780551?OpenDocument&Highlight=90-66
>>
>
> Did you bother to read any of that? Paragraph 8.k states; "Throughout the
> traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in FAR Part 91.113."

Yep! No conflict.

>
>
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf
>>
>
> From the Appendix, page 13"
>
> "(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."
>

Correct. But an instrument "approach" is an approach, not an instrument
"final".

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> Unless a practice IFR approaches can be made without interruption of
>> pattern traffic, they should divert to upwind leg upon encountering
>> traffic.
>>
>
> What about non-practice IFR approaches? What are they supposed to do to
> avoid interruption of pattern traffic?
>

AC 90-66A 7f. Yes, they are.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> Typical VFR pilots often fly without radios.
>>
>
> No they don't. While there are VFR pilots who often fly without radios
> that is atypical today.
>
>

Radios are not required at the vast majority of airports in the US. I can
assure you that VFR pilots fly uncontrolled fields without turning on a
radio every day, if they even have one. Right, wrong, good, bad or
indifferent, no one can assume all aircraft in an uncontrolled pattern are
even using a radio if they have it. Much less a chart that gives IFR
reporting points.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Fly a proper rectangular pattern and not a 10 mile long final.
>

Why does the length of final matter?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> The =object= is to enable visual aquisition. The =method= is by conveying
> position.
>

The object of conveying position is to let others know where you are. If
others know where you are visual acquisition may be unnecessary.


>
> So such a report is useful to =you=, an IFR pilot who is also a controller
> and happens to know where RIKKI is.
>

An accurate position and intention report is useful to any pilot that knows
where RIKKI is. It doesn't matter if they're operating IFR or VFR and it
doesn't matter how they earn their living.


>
> RIKKI might be the last step-down
> fix, a mile from the threshold, on an approach with which you are not
> familiar, at an airport at which you are newly arriving, and whose
> approach plate is in your flight kit in the back seat. In that case, that
> skyhawk definately is a factor for you.
>

Whatever RIKKI is I will know where it is. Since I know where RIKKI is I
will know where the Skyhawk is and I can easily determine whether it's a
factor for me.


>
> The other airplanes hear "squeal...key" and don't respond. Or they hear
> "where's RIKKI" and key the mike. Then you hear "squeal miles squeal
> other traffic squeal advise two"
>

Repeat the request. Many pilots use poor radio procedure, but that's
another issue.


>
> They typically become familiar with what they consider relevant
> information.
>

Wouldn't the relevant information be all available information concerning
that flight?


>
> They do not typically memorize it. No pilot becomes
> familiar with "all available" information. That's a silly impossibility
> designed so that the FAA can hang you if they want.
>

The requirement is not "all available" information, it's "all available
information concerning that flight."


>
> Typically the information is only on an approach plate. VFR pilots
> typically do not review approach plates. Some may never have even seen
> one. It is "information", it is "available". And no I don't think it is
> reasonable to expect a VFR pilot to have become familiar with all IFR
> approaches into an airport.
>

In this case the information is on the sectional aeronautical chart. Do
typical VFR pilots use sectional aeronautical charts to plan and conduct
their flights?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:73037e0e33d62@uwe...
>
> Bingo! This would seem to throw out the argument that using "RIKKI" is
> more accurate than "x mile final". The pilot flying the approach should
> have a fairly accurate idea of his distance to the runway. By giving the
> distance instead of a fix, it is more likely that all pilots in the
> pattern
> will know where he is, without creating unnecessary chatter on the CTAF.
>

Giving the distance instead of a fix doesn't tell others how the position
was determined, so it cannot be relied upon as an accurate report. For
distance in a position report to be reliable the reporter must include how
the distance was determined, as is done with DME distances.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Agreed. But AC 90-66 describes "final" as the segment between base leg and
> the runway.
>

Where? I can't find a description of "final" anywhere in AC 90-66A. The
Pilot/Controller Glossary defines "final" as "commonly used to mean that an
aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with a landing area."


>
> Paragraph 7e clearly states that pilots executing a
> "straight-in approach", without mentioning reason for the straight-in
> approach, will complete it without disrupting arriving traffic.
>

No, it says maneuvering for and execution of the approach SHOULD
be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing
traffic. This is not the only inconsistency to be found between advisory
material and the FARs. Keep in mind that ACs are not regulatory while
the FARs are.

[Jose]

> The object of conveying position is to let others know where you are. If
> others know where you are visual acquisition may be unnecessary.

The object of conveying position is to let others know where to look for
you, so that they can =see= where you are. Otherwise we'd all be happy
with UAVs flying around. And no that's not a non-sequitor.

> An accurate position and intention report is useful to any pilot that knows
> where RIKKI is. It doesn't matter if they're operating IFR or VFR and it
> doesn't matter how they earn their living.

They have to know where RIKKI is with respect to where they are. That's
subtlely (but importantly) different from simply knowing where RIKKI is.
They also need to know where you are =actually= going, and where they
are headed. They need to =maintain= separation. Once you are past
RIKKI, nobody knows where you are. That is where visual acquisition
comes in handy.

> Whatever RIKKI is I will know where it is.

You are unusual.

> Wouldn't the relevant information be all available information concerning
> that flight?

No.

All information has bearing on a flight. Most information's impact is
marginal, and safely ignored. It can reasonably be argued that the
location of the last IFR stepdown fix on a newly commissioned NDB
approach whose location is only revealed on the latest IFR plates would
constitute such marginal information as it concerns a VFR flight in CAVU
conditions. It could also be reasonably argued that the location of
"the playground" is equally marginal. Until, after an accident, it
turns out that one of the aircraft reported "over the playground", and
the other aircraft should of course know exactly where he is, and his
failure to do so consitituted failure to "be familiar with all relevant
information...". (Change "the playground" to "the lady" for a more
compelling but equally valid example).

>> Typically the information is only on an approach plate. VFR pilots
>> typically do not review approach plates. Some may never have even seen
>> one. It is "information", it is "available". And no I don't think it is
>> reasonable to expect a VFR pilot to have become familiar with all IFR
>> approaches into an airport.
>>
> In this case the information is on the sectional aeronautical chart.

In what case? On what sectional is RIKKI?

And yes, typical VFR pilots use sectionals, and have them in the
cockpit. However, they don't memorize all the intersections, and trying
to find one on the chart one while approaching a busy pattern is not
good piloting procedure.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nothing in either of those FARs indicates you can describe "final" as
> being farther away from the airport than the end of "base leg".
>

Nothing in Part 91 indicates that "final" does not extend beyond the end of
"base leg". If "final" does not extend beyond the end of "base leg" there
does not seem to be any reason for FAR 91.113(g) to exist.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ref AC 90-66a, 7f. Avoid interrupting traffic in the pattern.
>

If an arriving IFR aircraft is still in cloud at the circling MDA the
choices are complete the approach straight-in or go somewhere else.


>
> Sure it does. Look again.
>

Look again at what?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:30:07 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>In this instance, RIKKI is jargon to anyone unfamiliar with the IFR
>approach plates for that airport -- something that is typical for VFR
>pilots.

Personally, I would classify approach plates or low-level en route
charts as being within the broad category of "all available
information" with which an airman is required to familiarize himself
during preflight planning.

The root of the problem is the 'hobby' mentality of some airman. To
be an aviation dilettante invites disaster.



http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=353042114bad3c1f23afd902408d1d31&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.2
§ 91.103 Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
This information must include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an
airport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements,
alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed,
and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has
been advised by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use,
and the following takeoff and landing distance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or
Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance
data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained
therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to
the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected
values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross
weight, and wind and temperature.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> So such a report is useful to =you=, an IFR pilot who is also a
>> controller and happens to know where RIKKI is.
>>
>
> An accurate position and intention report is useful to any pilot that
> knows where RIKKI is. It doesn't matter if they're operating IFR or
> VFR and it doesn't matter how they earn their living.
>
You've both argued this one to death, and both keep overlooking the
obvious. Pilots *and* controllers use colloquial jargon to communicate
position.

An example; a few years ago, I was flying into Don Scott (OSU) from the
North East. I contacted the tower, and was told to "report when I was over
the river". Well, it seemed reasonable to me that the controller was
referring to the river that was visible directly ahead of me. However,
there are *two* rivers near OSU, and the controller was actually referring
to the other river, which was not visible from my position. It could have
gotten quite ugly, as my flight path would have put me off the departure
end of the active runway at pattern altitude.

In this instance, RIKKI is jargon to anyone unfamiliar with the IFR
approach plates for that airport -- something that is typical for VFR
pilots. So, while that call might tell the controller where the aircraft
is, it would seem prudent for the controller to then translate that into
something meaningful for VFR traffic in the vicinity.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Personally, I would classify approach plates or low-level en route
> charts as being within the broad category of "all available
> information" with which an airman is required to familiarize himself
> during preflight planning.
>
> The root of the problem is the 'hobby' mentality of some airman. To
> be an aviation dilettante invites disaster.
>

So Larry you are saying that you know not only the names but locations as
well of every IFR fix, intersection, ect... for every airport that you have
ever flown into VFR?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Neil Gould > posted:
>
> In this instance, RIKKI is jargon to anyone unfamiliar with the IFR
> approach plates for that airport -- something that is typical for VFR

Please excuse the typo. The above should read "atypical for VFR"

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:30:07 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> In this instance, RIKKI is jargon to anyone unfamiliar with the IFR
>> approach plates for that airport -- something that is typical for VFR
>> pilots.
>
> Personally, I would classify approach plates or low-level en route
> charts as being within the broad category of "all available
> information" with which an airman is required to familiarize himself
> during preflight planning.
>
You must have real fun planning a long VFR XC. How many weeks does it take
you?

> The root of the problem is the 'hobby' mentality of some airman. To
> be an aviation dilettante invites disaster.
>
As I see it, an airman doesn't think they need to communicate
meaningfully, and choose instead to use colloquial jargon, THEY are the
the ones inviting disaster.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Neil Gould > posted:

> Recently, Neil Gould > posted:
>>
>> In this instance, RIKKI is jargon to anyone unfamiliar with the IFR
>> approach plates for that airport -- something that is typical for VFR
>
> Please excuse the typo. The above should read "atypical for VFR"
>
Yikes. Never mind! Revert to previous...

Neil

[Jose]

> Personally, I would classify approach plates or low-level en route
> charts as being within the broad category of "all available
> information" with which an airman is required to familiarize himself
> during preflight planning.

You mean to say that a newly minted VFR pilot is supposed to study all
the approach plates at all the airports he might be flying past or need
to fly into? How many newly minted VFR pilots even know how to read an
approach plate?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:37:36 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Personally, I would classify approach plates or low-level en route
>> charts as being within the broad category of "all available
>> information" with which an airman is required to familiarize himself
>> during preflight planning.
>>
>> The root of the problem is the 'hobby' mentality of some airman. To
>> be an aviation dilettante invites disaster.
>>
>
>So Larry you are saying that you know not only the names but locations as
>well of every IFR fix, intersection, ect... for every airport that you have
>ever flown into VFR?
>

Don't be silly.

I'm saying, that regulations require an airman to have all available
information that may affect his planned flight. But you knew that,
right?

[Jim Stewart]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Personally, I would classify approach plates or low-level en route
>> charts as being within the broad category of "all available
>> information" with which an airman is required to familiarize himself
>> during preflight planning.
>>
>> The root of the problem is the 'hobby' mentality of some airman. To
>> be an aviation dilettante invites disaster.
>>
>
> So Larry you are saying that you know not only the names but locations as
> well of every IFR fix, intersection, ect... for every airport that you have
> ever flown into VFR?

Before the internet, didn't "all available
information" pretty much mean a current
sectional and Airport F/D and a weather/
notam briefing for a VFR flight?

Now that we have the internet, I could spend
10 hours researching a 2 hour flight for
"all available information"

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:33:33 -0400, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> Personally, I would classify approach plates or low-level en route
>> charts as being within the broad category of "all available
>> information" with which an airman is required to familiarize himself
>> during preflight planning.
>
>You mean to say that a newly minted VFR pilot is supposed to study all
>the approach plates at all the airports he might be flying past or need
>to fly into?

No. I find that the regulations require familiarity with all
available information relevant to the flight. I would suppose that an
FAA inspector would also.

>How many newly minted VFR pilots even know how to read an
>approach plate?
>
>Jose

Only those who value their lives? :-)

Honestly, if I were headed to an un-towered airport, before I'd fault
an IFR arrival for reporting RIKKI, I'd question my preflight planning
thoroughness.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:30:13 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>I guess you
>think that quarter million pilots are "aviation dilettantes", and that if
>they don't understand of your communications, it is not your problem?

No. I think that if regulations are not followed, a PD has occurred.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:


> You mean to say that a newly minted VFR pilot is supposed to study all
> the approach plates at all the airports he might be flying past or need
> to fly into?

Of course not, that is an assinine statement. An IFR pilot who reports
a navaid or especially an intersection inbound is just fouling the air.
It is irrelevant that it is on the sectional. Nobody with two brain
cells left whips out a sectional while in the pattern to locate the
idiot IFR pilot.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:37:36 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I would classify approach plates or low-level en route
>>> charts as being within the broad category of "all available
>>> information" with which an airman is required to familiarize himself
>>> during preflight planning.
>>>
>>> The root of the problem is the 'hobby' mentality of some airman. To
>>> be an aviation dilettante invites disaster.
>>>
>>
>> So Larry you are saying that you know not only the names but
>> locations as well of every IFR fix, intersection, ect... for every
>> airport that you have ever flown into VFR?
>>
>
> Don't be silly.
>
> I'm saying, that regulations require an airman to have all available
> information that may affect his planned flight. But you knew that,
> right?
>
To be "information", it must be in a form understandable to the pilot.
Until a pilot at least completes IFR ground school, "information" will not
typically include approach plates or procedures. As approximately 40% of
pilots are not IFR rated, and probably half of those or more have yet to
take IFR ground school (plus all student and sport pilots) I guess you
think that quarter million pilots are "aviation dilettantes", and that if
they don't understand of your communications, it is not your problem?

Neil

[Jose]

> No. I find that the regulations require familiarity with all
> available information relevant to the flight. I would suppose that an
> FAA inspector would also.

The location of all IFR stepdown fixes at possible diversionary airports
is marginally relevant to a VFR flight in CAVU conditions. So is the
location of all prominant buildings that other aircraft might use, and
so is a call ahead to local pilots to find out what "The Playground" is.
There is no limit to what information could be construed as
"relevant". Is it reckless for a VFR pilot to depart an airport CAVU
VFR without studying the SIDS and STARS? I would think not.

See, there is a gradation, not a sharp line. If you take the phrase
literally, "all" means all, "available" means available, and
"information" means information. You'd never take off.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:30:13 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>As approximately 40% of
>pilots are not IFR rated, and probably half of those or more have yet to
>take IFR ground school (plus all student and sport pilots) I guess you
>think that quarter million pilots are "aviation dilettantes", and that if
>they don't understand of your communications, it is not your problem?

It's not me; it's the FAA. Look at the third paragraph from the
bottom:


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C54E50252A7FA56D862569D8007804BA?OpenDocument
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers

9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSITION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended flight activity or ground
operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily
at airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport.
...
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted
that aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be
making self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM
frequency. To help identify one airport from another, the airport
name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each
self-announce transmission.

(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE),
(DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE)
RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *

(2) outbound:
$TRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX, DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION),
CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
(TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC PRACTICE (TYPE)
APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.


12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNCATIONS PROCEDURES.
...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:50:53 -0400, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> No. I find that the regulations require familiarity with all
>> available information relevant to the flight. I would suppose that an
>> FAA inspector would also.
>
>The location of all IFR stepdown fixes at possible diversionary airports
>is marginally relevant to a VFR flight in CAVU conditions. So is the
>location of all prominant buildings that other aircraft might use, and
>so is a call ahead to local pilots to find out what "The Playground" is.
> There is no limit to what information could be construed as
>"relevant". Is it reckless for a VFR pilot to depart an airport CAVU
>VFR without studying the SIDS and STARS? I would think not.
>
>See, there is a gradation, not a sharp line. If you take the phrase
>literally, "all" means all, "available" means available, and
>"information" means information. You'd never take off.
>
>Jose


Hey, I don't write the ACs and FARs. The AC below seems to indicate
that reporting the FAF is what the FAA want's to hear (3rd paragraph
from the bottom):



http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C54E50252A7FA56D862569D8007804BA?OpenDocument
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers

9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSITION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended flight activity or ground
operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily
at airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport.
...
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted
that aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be
making self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM
frequency. To help identify one airport from another, the airport
name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each
self-announce transmission.

(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE),
(DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE)
RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *

(2) outbound:
$TRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX, DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION),
CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
(TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC PRACTICE (TYPE)
APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.


12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNCATIONS PROCEDURES.
...

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:30:13 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> I guess you
>> think that quarter million pilots are "aviation dilettantes", and
>> that if they don't understand of your communications, it is not your
>> problem?
>
> No. I think that if regulations are not followed, a PD has occurred.
>
Regulations *are* followed if all available _information_ is obtained.
And, let's not overlook that "all available information" pertinent to the
flight includes the fact that an IFR pilot flying into an active VFR
airport is also communicating to VFR pilots. To presume that only the
IFR-rated pilots need to know that pilot's location likely violates the
regulation, as well.

Neil

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Fly a proper rectangular pattern and not a 10 mile long final.
> >
>
> Why does the length of final matter?

Because it screws up everyone else in the pattern! I absolutely HATE it
when some dolt in a C152 insists on flying a B-52 pattern!

[Jose]

> It's not me; it's the FAA.
> EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES [snipped]


Then the FAA has it's head in a very dark place. But this won't be the
first time.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Nothing in either of those FARs indicates you can describe "final" as
>> being farther away from the airport than the end of "base leg".
>>
>
> Nothing in Part 91 indicates that "final" does not extend beyond the end
> of "base leg". If "final" does not extend beyond the end of "base leg"
> there does not seem to be any reason for FAR 91.113(g) to exist.
>

Sure it does. You can easily have two aircraft on final after their turn
from base leg.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Ref AC 90-66a, 7f. Avoid interrupting traffic in the pattern.
>>
>
> If an arriving IFR aircraft is still in cloud at the circling MDA the
> choices are complete the approach straight-in or go somewhere else.
>

So what's you point?

>
>>
>> Sure it does. Look again.
>>
>
> Look again at what?
>

I don't know, you snipped it.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Fly a proper rectangular pattern and not a 10 mile long final.
>>
>
> Why does the length of final matter?
>

Because 10 miles is not a final, it's an approach.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I didn't finish my thought:
>>
>> If you are on a precision approach in those conditions, you will be at
>> least 2.5 miles out when you break out (on a steep glideslope). Normally
>> you will be more than 3 miles out. In either type of approach, you have
>> plenty of time circle to land if the pattern is full.
>>
>
> Nope. Remember, the ceiling is below the circling MDA.
>
>
>>
>> So, if there is VFR traffic in the pattern, an arriving IFR plane has
>> time
>> to transition to VFR and join the pattern without disrupting the flow.
>> If
>> conditions are so bad that the arriving aircraft can't transition in
>> time,
>> then it's unlikely that the airport is VFR legal anyway.
>>
>
> Nope, VFR legal require just one mile visibility.
>

Again, so what's you point?

[Maxwell]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven P. McNicoll" >
>
> Where? I can't find a description of "final" anywhere in AC 90-66A. The
> Pilot/Controller Glossary defines "final" as "commonly used to mean that
> an
> aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with a landing
> area."
>

Paragraph 8e states the turn to base leg should commence 45 degrees from the
threshold, which requires final to be the approximately as long as the
downwind is from the runway.

>
>
> No, it says maneuvering for and execution of the approach SHOULD
> be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing
> traffic. This is not the only inconsistency to be found between advisory
> material and the FARs. Keep in mind that ACs are not regulatory while
> the FARs are.

Where is AC 90-66 inconsistant with the FARs?

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
m...
> Aircraft flying a full pattern do have the right of way.
>
> Reporting points should be done in miles at uncontrolled airports.

It seems a lot of people have differing views on the interpretation of this
scenario. Maybe they should change the wording, and ruling to state that an
a/c cannot announce that they are on finals, until they are at circuit
height. That would just about rule out straight ins, and at least if someone
does come in on a straight in approach, all the traffic already in the
pattern is at the same altitude, and will spot him easier, rather than
looking to a higher altitude for an a/c that may be hidden by sunglare or
cloud.
Just my 2 cents, from a non experienced student pilot.
Crash Lander
--
http://straightandlevel1973.spaces.live.com/
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is correct. AC 90-66 clairifys it very well, and 91.113 is not in
> conflict.
>

What do you believe AC 90-66A clarifies?


>
> Per AC 90-66. 7f . Position reports on CTAF should include distance and
> direction from the airport.
>

It doesn't say reports should be given in miles, it says position reports on
the CTAF should include distance and direction from the airport. Announcing
position over a known fix provides distance and direction and is far more
reliable than an estimate of distance.


>
> Yep! No conflict.
>

It's your position that "aircraft flying a full pattern do have the right of
way." FAR 91.113(g) states that aircraft on final have the right of way.
I'd call that conflict.


>
> Correct. But an instrument "approach" is an approach, not an instrument
> "final".
>

FAR 91.113 is found among the general flight rules, it does not distinguish
between VFR and IFR operations. Aircraft on final have the right-of-way, it
does not matter how they came to be on final.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> AC 90-66A 7f. Yes, they are.
>

Yes they are what?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Radios are not required at the vast majority of airports in the US. I can
> assure you that VFR pilots fly uncontrolled fields without turning on a
> radio every day, if they even have one. Right, wrong, good, bad or
> indifferent, no one can assume all aircraft in an uncontrolled pattern are
> even using a radio if they have it. Much less a chart that gives IFR
> reporting points.
>

I don't need your assurances, I'm very much aware of the level of VFR flying
done without radios. The point is many pilots WITH radios substitute them
for a proper traffic scan.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It is correct. AC 90-66 clairifys it very well, and 91.113 is not in
>> conflict.
>>
>
> What do you believe AC 90-66A clarifies?
>
>

That aircraft in the pattern have the right of way. You know, the part you
snipped.

>>
>> Per AC 90-66. 7f . Position reports on CTAF should include distance and
>> direction from the airport.
>>
>
> It doesn't say reports should be given in miles, it says position reports
> on
> the CTAF should include distance and direction from the airport.
> Announcing
> position over a known fix provides distance and direction and is far more
> reliable than an estimate of distance.
>

IFR fixes provide zero informaiton to a VFR pilot.


>
>>
>> Yep! No conflict.
>>
>
> It's your position that "aircraft flying a full pattern do have the right
> of way." FAR 91.113(g) states that aircraft on final have the right of
> way. I'd call that conflict.
>

Only because you wish to ignore the FAA recommendations in AC 90-66.
Aircraft entering on a straight in approach should not disrupt traffic in
the pattern.

>
>>
>> Correct. But an instrument "approach" is an approach, not an instrument
>> "final".
>>
>
> FAR 91.113 is found among the general flight rules, it does not
> distinguish between VFR and IFR operations. Aircraft on final have the
> right-of-way, it does not matter how they came to be on final.
>

AC 90-66 is crystal clear, you just don't happen to like it.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> AC 90-66A 7f. Yes, they are.
>>
>
> Yes they are what?
>

Already asked and answered.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Radios are not required at the vast majority of airports in the US. I can
>> assure you that VFR pilots fly uncontrolled fields without turning on a
>> radio every day, if they even have one. Right, wrong, good, bad or
>> indifferent, no one can assume all aircraft in an uncontrolled pattern
>> are
>> even using a radio if they have it. Much less a chart that gives IFR
>> reporting points.
>>
>
> I don't need your assurances, I'm very much aware of the level of VFR
> flying done without radios. The point is many pilots WITH radios
> substitute them for a proper traffic scan.
>
>

No, your question was do pilots fly without charts. Your just trolling
today.

[Maxwell]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Reporting points should be done in miles at uncontrolled airports.
>
> It seems a lot of people have differing views on the interpretation of
> this scenario. Maybe they should change the wording, and ruling to state
> that an a/c cannot announce that they are on finals, until they are at
> circuit height. That would just about rule out straight ins, and at least
> if someone does come in on a straight in approach, all the traffic already
> in the pattern is at the same altitude, and will spot him easier, rather
> than looking to a higher altitude for an a/c that may be hidden by
> sunglare or cloud.

I'm not sure I'm following you.

I think most instrument approaches are about a 3 degree glide slope. This
means an aircraft on approach will descend through a pattern altitude of
1000 feet more than 3.5 miles from the airport. And this is just seconds
before they drop into the ground clutter, as viewed by other aircraft at
pattern altitude.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not sure I'm following you.
>
> I think most instrument approaches are about a 3 degree glide slope. This
> means an aircraft on approach will descend through a pattern altitude of
> 1000 feet more than 3.5 miles from the airport. And this is just seconds
> before they drop into the ground clutter, as viewed by other aircraft at
> pattern altitude.

Ah! My bad. I was thinking VFR a/c only. I did not know ILS approaches got
that low so close to the airfield.
Crash Lander
--
http://straightandlevel1973.spaces.live.com/
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!

[Jose]

> I did not know ILS approaches got
> that low so close to the airfield.

They get down to two hundred feet (or lower for cat II and III) and
pretty close to the threshold.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> The object of conveying position is to let others know where to look for
> you, so that they can =see= where you are. Otherwise we'd all be happy
> with UAVs flying around. And no that's not a non-sequitor.
>

The object of conveying position is to let others know where you are. If
others know where you are it may be unnecessary for them to =see= where you
are.


>
> They have to know where RIKKI is with respect to where they are. That's
> subtlely (but importantly) different from simply knowing where RIKKI is.
> They also need to know where you are =actually= going, and where they are
> headed. They need to =maintain= separation. Once you are past RIKKI,
> nobody knows where you are. That is where visual acquisition comes in
> handy.
>

If they know where RIKKI is and they know where they are they know where
RIKKI is with respect to where they are.


>
> You are unusual.
>

Not really, many pilots make an effort to be aware of what's around them.


>
> No.
>
> All information has bearing on a flight. Most information's impact is
> marginal, and safely ignored. It can reasonably be argued that the
> location of the last IFR stepdown fix on a newly commissioned NDB approach
> whose location is only revealed on the latest IFR plates would constitute
> such marginal information as it concerns a VFR flight in CAVU conditions.
> It could also be reasonably argued that the location of "the playground"
> is equally marginal. Until, after an accident, it turns out that one of
> the aircraft reported "over the playground", and the other aircraft should
> of course know exactly where he is, and his failure to do so consitituted
> failure to "be familiar with all relevant information...". (Change "the
> playground" to "the lady" for a more compelling but equally valid
> example).
>

The relevant information is the information that concerns that flight.
That's what relevant means.


>
> In what case? On what sectional is RIKKI?
>

The case we're talking about is GALEY, near Houghton County airport. It's
on the Green Bay sectional.


>
> And yes, typical VFR pilots use sectionals, and have them in the cockpit.
> However, they don't memorize all the intersections, and trying to find one
> on the chart one while approaching a busy pattern is not good piloting
> procedure.
>

They don't examine them during flight planning to familiarize themselves
with their destination?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
et...
>
> You've both argued this one to death, and both keep overlooking the
> obvious. Pilots *and* controllers use colloquial jargon to communicate
> position.
>

Obvious or not, since that's not part of this discussion it hasn't been
overlooked.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:02:03 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
wrote:

>"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm not sure I'm following you.
>>
>> I think most instrument approaches are about a 3 degree glide slope. This
>> means an aircraft on approach will descend through a pattern altitude of
>> 1000 feet more than 3.5 miles from the airport. And this is just seconds
>> before they drop into the ground clutter, as viewed by other aircraft at
>> pattern altitude.

And a GPS approach (with vertical guidance) will have roughly the same
profile but with the low end 300 to 500 feet above the threshold.

>
>Ah! My bad. I was thinking VFR a/c only. I did not know ILS approaches got
>that low so close to the airfield.
>Crash Lander

Then you take non precision approaches (VOR step down) out here in the
flat lands. We step dwon from around 1800 AGL to 500 AGL a tad over 5
miles out.with a cirlce to land at 500 which is half the pattern
altitude.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> You mean to say that a newly minted VFR pilot is supposed to study all the
> approach plates at all the airports he might be flying past or need to fly
> into?
>

I don't see a reason to study those which he'd be flying past, but examining
the plates of the airports where he intends to land would be a good idea.


>
> How many newly minted VFR pilots even know how to read an approach
> plate?
>

Every newly minted VFR pilot should be able to identify the fixes in the
plan view of an IAP.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Of course not, that is an assinine statement. An IFR pilot who reports a
> navaid or especially an intersection inbound is just fouling the air. It
> is irrelevant that it is on the sectional. Nobody with two brain cells
> left whips out a sectional while in the pattern to locate the idiot IFR
> pilot.
>

So VFR pilots don't use sectionals in preflight planning or while in flight.
Why do they carry them at all?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because it screws up everyone else in the pattern! I absolutely HATE it
> when some dolt in a C152 insists on flying a B-52 pattern!
>

Me too, but we're talking about a straight-in approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure it does. You can easily have two aircraft on final after their turn
> from base leg.
>

How does FAR 91.113(g) apply in that case?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> So what's you point?
>

Circling may not be an option.


>
> I don't know, you snipped it.
>

I snipped nothing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because 10 miles is not a final, it's an approach.
>

Where do you find those definitions?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Jun 7, 6:30 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:
>
> Oh? When was this added to the Private Knowledge Test or Practical?
>

I don't know, but I suspect it was quite some time ago. I'll try to
find out.

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

PART 61-CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

§ 61.105 Aeronautical knowledge.

(a) General. A person who is applying for a private pilot certificate
must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor or
complete a home-study course on the aeronautical knowledge areas of
paragraph (b) of this section that apply to the aircraft category and
class rating sought.

(4) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead
reckoning, and navigation systems;

(5) Radio communication procedures;

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Jose" > wrote:
>>
>> How many newly minted VFR pilots even know how to read an approach
>> plate?
>>
>
> Every newly minted VFR pilot should be able to identify the fixes in
> the plan view of an IAP.
>
Oh? When was this added to the Private Knowledge Test or Practical?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> On Jun 7, 6:30 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:
>>
>> Oh? When was this added to the Private Knowledge Test or Practical?
>>
>
> I don't know, but I suspect it was quite some time ago. I'll try to
> find out.
>
Do that. It hasn't been.

> Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
>
> PART 61-CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
> INSTRUCTORS
>
> § 61.105 Aeronautical knowledge.
>
> (a) General. A person who is applying for a private pilot certificate
> must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor or
> complete a home-study course on the aeronautical knowledge areas of
> paragraph (b) of this section that apply to the aircraft category and
> class rating sought.
>
> (4) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead
> reckoning, and navigation systems;
>
> (5) Radio communication procedures;
>
You do realize that NONE of the above involves IAPs, don't you?

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Of course not, that is an assinine statement. An IFR pilot who
>> reports a navaid or especially an intersection inbound is just
>> fouling the air. It is irrelevant that it is on the sectional. Nobody
>> with two brain cells left whips out a sectional while in the
>> pattern to locate the idiot IFR pilot.
>>
>
> So VFR pilots don't use sectionals in preflight planning or while in
> flight. Why do they carry them at all?

http://skyvector.com/#22-28-3-2358-2654

There's the sectional for my home airport KELD. Please let me know from
this section where the fixes are ann what there names are.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Again, so what's you point?
>

It was stated, "If conditions are so bad that the arriving aircraft can't
transition in time, then it's unlikely that the airport is VFR legal
anyway." The airport can remain legal well after conditions deteriorate to
preclude circling.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Paragraph 8e states the turn to base leg should commence 45 degrees from
> the threshold, which requires final to be the approximately as long as the
> downwind is from the runway.
>

Stating that the turn from downwind to base leg should commence 45 degrees
from the threshold does not mean that final does not extend beyond the base
leg.


>
> Where is AC 90-66 inconsistant with the FARs?
>

FAR 91.113(g) states very clearly that aircraft on final have the
right-of-way. If you believe AC 90-66A says aircraft flying a full pattern
have the right of way you must believe that AC 90-66A is inconsistent with
the FARs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
>
> It seems a lot of people have differing views on the interpretation of
> this scenario. Maybe they should change the wording, and ruling to state
> that an a/c cannot announce that they are on finals, until they are at
> circuit height. That would just about rule out straight ins, and at least
> if someone does come in on a straight in approach, all the traffic already
> in the pattern is at the same altitude, and will spot him easier, rather
> than looking to a higher altitude for an a/c that may be hidden by
> sunglare or cloud.
>

Rule out straight-ins? Easy. Just put the requirement in the FARs that all
arrival aircraft at nontowered fields fly a full pattern and eliminate
straight-in minima those fields.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Crash Lander" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It seems a lot of people have differing views on the interpretation of
>> this scenario. Maybe they should change the wording, and ruling to state
>> that an a/c cannot announce that they are on finals, until they are at
>> circuit height. That would just about rule out straight ins, and at least
>> if someone does come in on a straight in approach, all the traffic
>> already
>> in the pattern is at the same altitude, and will spot him easier, rather
>> than looking to a higher altitude for an a/c that may be hidden by
>> sunglare or cloud.
>>
>
> Rule out straight-ins? Easy. Just put the requirement in the FARs that
> all arrival aircraft at nontowered fields fly a full pattern and eliminate
> straight-in minima those fields.
>

And ignore any FAA recommended procedures that promote safe operations.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> That aircraft in the pattern have the right of way. You know, the part you
> snipped.
>

AC 90-66A does not indicate that aircraft in the pattern have the
right-of-way over aircraft on final.


>
> IFR fixes provide zero informaiton to a VFR pilot.
>

Is bad information better than no information?


>
> Only because you wish to ignore the FAA recommendations in AC 90-66.
> Aircraft entering on a straight in approach should not disrupt traffic in
> the pattern.
>

I'll ignore all recommendations that are discourteous , reduce safety, and
are inconsistent with the FARs. Everybody should.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Because it screws up everyone else in the pattern! I absolutely HATE it
>> when some dolt in a C152 insists on flying a B-52 pattern!
>>
>
> Me too, but we're talking about a straight-in approach.
>
>

People that insist on straight in approaches at uncontrolled fields are just
as bad if not worse. Not following FAA recommend procedures is proabably
worse.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Because 10 miles is not a final, it's an approach.
>>
>
> Where do you find those definitions?
>
>

AC 90-66A, if you believe in such things.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Paragraph 8e states the turn to base leg should commence 45 degrees from
>> the threshold, which requires final to be the approximately as long as
>> the
>> downwind is from the runway.
>>
>
> Stating that the turn from downwind to base leg should commence 45 degrees
> from the threshold does not mean that final does not extend beyond the
> base leg.

So now you are going to try to convince us that final doesn't follow base
leg. Do you have a reference?

>
>
>>
>> Where is AC 90-66 inconsistant with the FARs?
>>
>
> FAR 91.113(g) states very clearly that aircraft on final have the
> right-of-way. If you believe AC 90-66A says aircraft flying a full
> pattern have the right of way you must believe that AC 90-66A is
> inconsistent with the FARs.
>

No, as a matter of fact, the FAA clearly states in AC 90-66A that:

Aircraft on straight in approach should not disturb traffic in the standard
traffic pattern;

And, right-of-way rules apply as stated in FAR 91.113.

Obviously the FAA interprets FAR 91.113 much differently than you do.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Sure it does. You can easily have two aircraft on final after their turn
>> from base leg.
>>
>
> How does FAR 91.113(g) apply in that case?
>

Just as it's stated. If two aircraft turn final from base leg, 91.113g is
still very useful.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Again, so what's you point?
>>
>
> It was stated, "If conditions are so bad that the arriving aircraft can't
> transition in time, then it's unlikely that the airport is VFR legal
> anyway." The airport can remain legal well after conditions deteriorate
> to preclude circling.
>
>

Since AC 90-66A doesn't speak to that particular point, and I'm not aware of
anything that does, maybe you should ask the FAA?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> AC 90-66A, if you believe in such things.

Please cite them.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So what's you point?
>>
>
> Circling may not be an option.
>
>
>>
>> I don't know, you snipped it.
>>
>
> I snipped nothing.
>

You're trolling.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> AC 90-66A, if you believe in such things.
>
> Please cite them.
>

You can read, can't you?

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> The object of conveying position is to let others know where to look for
>> you, so that they can =see= where you are. Otherwise we'd all be happy
>> with UAVs flying around. And no that's not a non-sequitor.
>>
>
> The object of conveying position is to let others know where you are. If
> others know where you are it may be unnecessary for them to =see= where
> you are.
>
>
>>
>> They have to know where RIKKI is with respect to where they are. That's
>> subtlely (but importantly) different from simply knowing where RIKKI is.
>> They also need to know where you are =actually= going, and where they are
>> headed. They need to =maintain= separation. Once you are past RIKKI,
>> nobody knows where you are. That is where visual acquisition comes in
>> handy.
>>
>
> If they know where RIKKI is and they know where they are they know where
> RIKKI is with respect to where they are.
>
>
>>
>> You are unusual.
>>
>
> Not really, many pilots make an effort to be aware of what's around them.
>
>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> All information has bearing on a flight. Most information's impact is
>> marginal, and safely ignored. It can reasonably be argued that the
>> location of the last IFR stepdown fix on a newly commissioned NDB
>> approach
>> whose location is only revealed on the latest IFR plates would constitute
>> such marginal information as it concerns a VFR flight in CAVU conditions.
>> It could also be reasonably argued that the location of "the playground"
>> is equally marginal. Until, after an accident, it turns out that one of
>> the aircraft reported "over the playground", and the other aircraft
>> should
>> of course know exactly where he is, and his failure to do so consitituted
>> failure to "be familiar with all relevant information...". (Change "the
>> playground" to "the lady" for a more compelling but equally valid
>> example).
>>
>
> The relevant information is the information that concerns that flight.
> That's what relevant means.
>
>
>>
>> In what case? On what sectional is RIKKI?
>>
>
> The case we're talking about is GALEY, near Houghton County airport. It's
> on the Green Bay sectional.
>
>
>>
>> And yes, typical VFR pilots use sectionals, and have them in the cockpit.
>> However, they don't memorize all the intersections, and trying to find
>> one
>> on the chart one while approaching a busy pattern is not good piloting
>> procedure.
>>
>
> They don't examine them during flight planning to familiarize themselves
> with their destination?
>
>

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...

Do you know of any regulation or recommendation from the FAA that even
suggests a VFR pilot should know the IFR reporting points?

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> You mean to say that a newly minted VFR pilot is supposed to study all
>> the
>> approach plates at all the airports he might be flying past or need to
>> fly
>> into?
>>
>
> I don't see a reason to study those which he'd be flying past, but
> examining the plates of the airports where he intends to land would be a
> good idea.
>
>
>>
>> How many newly minted VFR pilots even know how to read an approach
>> plate?
>>
>
> Every newly minted VFR pilot should be able to identify the fixes in the
> plan view of an IAP.
>

That's totally absurd.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 7, 6:30 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:
>
> Oh? When was this added to the Private Knowledge Test or Practical?
>

I don't know, but I suspect it was quite some time ago. I'll try to
find out.

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

PART 61-CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

§ 61.105 Aeronautical knowledge.

(a) General. A person who is applying for a private pilot certificate
must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor or
complete a home-study course on the aeronautical knowledge areas of
paragraph (b) of this section that apply to the aircraft category and
class rating sought.

(4) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead
reckoning, and navigation systems;

(5) Radio communication procedures;


Would it not have been easier to say "It wasn't"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can read, can't you?

Yes, very well.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you know of any regulation or recommendation from the FAA that even
> suggests a VFR pilot should know the IFR reporting points?
>

Yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's totally absurd.
>

Why?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would it not have been easier to say "It wasn't"?
>

Easier, but untruthful.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Why?

They have no use for them.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Easier, but untruthful.

Truthful and much less smoke.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Do you know of any regulation or recommendation from the FAA that even
>> suggests a VFR pilot should know the IFR reporting points?
>>
>
> Yes.
>

Where?

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That aircraft in the pattern have the right of way. You know, the part
>> you
>> snipped.
>>
>
> AC 90-66A does not indicate that aircraft in the pattern have the
> right-of-way over aircraft on final.

It does indeed, you just don't happen to like it.


>
>
>>
>> IFR fixes provide zero informaiton to a VFR pilot.
>>
>
> Is bad information better than no information?
>
>
>>
>> Only because you wish to ignore the FAA recommendations in AC 90-66.
>> Aircraft entering on a straight in approach should not disrupt traffic in
>> the pattern.
>>
>
> I'll ignore all recommendations that are discourteous , reduce safety, and
> are inconsistent with the FARs. Everybody should.

They are none of the above, and nobody should. If you think you are above
following the recommended procedures of the FAA, you are simply unsafe. But
go ahead, as we can be certain you will. Someday, you or some other IR
cowboy like you, will kill someone, and perhaps the FAA with firm things up
a bit.

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You can read, can't you?
>
> Yes, very well.
>

Then read the material. Your questions have been asked and answered.

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> AC 90-66A, if you believe in such things.
>
> Please cite them.

I believe the "definition" in that circular is implicit in the labeling of
the airport operation diagrams in appendix 1. The line out from infinite to
the point where it joins the base leg is labelled "straight-in approach"
and the narrative for point (3) labels the line from the base leg to the
runway as final.

[Jim Logajan]

"Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
> Do you know of any regulation or recommendation from the FAA that even
> suggests a VFR pilot should know the IFR reporting points?

I think you've made your point. Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports when
landing at same:

"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the
flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance
and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
completion of the approach."

It seems pretty clear that calling out IFR reporting points on CTAF is
contraindicated. I'm not sure why this argument is continuing since the
safest course of action seems pretty clear.

[1] http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

[Maxwell]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>
>> Do you know of any regulation or recommendation from the FAA that even
>> suggests a VFR pilot should know the IFR reporting points?
>
> I think you've made your point. Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
> clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
> positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports when
> landing at same:
>
> "Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
> alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the
> flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance
> and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
> completion of the approach."
>
> It seems pretty clear that calling out IFR reporting points on CTAF is
> contraindicated. I'm not sure why this argument is continuing since the
> safest course of action seems pretty clear.
>
> [1]
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

Thanks Jim, it seems pretty clear to me.

I think the FAA has done a good job of showing it's complete support for
standard traffic pattern operations, without eliminating the possibility of
straight in approaches when an airport has no traffic. Seems to me like we
all win.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:03:15 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
>clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
>positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports when
>landing at same:

How do you resolve that conclusion with the third paragraph from the
end below:


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C54E50252A7FA56D862569D8007804BA?OpenDocument
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers

9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSITION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended flight activity or ground
operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily
at airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport.
...
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted
that aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be
making self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM
frequency. To help identify one airport from another, the airport
name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each
self-announce transmission.

(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE),
(DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE)
RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *

(2) outbound:
$TRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX, DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION),
CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
(TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC PRACTICE (TYPE)
APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.


12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNCATIONS PROCEDURES.
...

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:03:15 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
>>clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
>>positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports
>>when landing at same:
>
> How do you resolve that conclusion with the third paragraph from the
> end below:
....
> AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
> Control Towers
....
> 11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES.
....
> (3) Practice Instrument Approach:
> STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
> APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
> (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

To paraphrase Walt Whitman:
It is the FAA. It is large, it contains multitudes. It contradicts itself.



"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself (I am large, I
contain multitudes)."
--Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

[Jose]

> Rule out straight-ins? Easy. Just put the requirement in the FARs that all
> arrival aircraft at nontowered fields fly a full pattern and eliminate
> straight-in minima those fields.

We could rule out "holding out" too, but the FAA decided not to do it
that way. They just made up their own interpretation. I don't see any
reason why they can't do it here too.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Is bad information better than no information?

Often it is. IT depends on how bad the information is. "five miles
northeast" when the aircraft is really five point six miles east north
east is "bad information". But I'll find him.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I don't see a reason to study those which he'd be flying past, but examining
> the plates of the airports where he intends to land would be a good idea.

There are many things that might be a good idea. What is =not= a good
idea is expecting other pilots to do them.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.