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


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

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

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

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

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

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