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

Jim Cummiskey wrote:

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

He's wrong.

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

He's wrong.

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

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

Regards, Jim

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Jim Cummiskey wrote:

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

He's wrong.

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

Jim Cummiskey wrote:

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

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

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

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...

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

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

(1) The expression "Report 5 miles final" is not an instruction.


Yes it is.



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


Doug is wrong.

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

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

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


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control-- Terminal

Section 10. Arrival Procedures and Separation

3-10-1. LANDING INFORMATION

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

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

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

PHRASEOLOGY-
ENTER LEFT/RIGHT BASE.

STRAIGHT-IN.

MAKE STRAIGHT-IN.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROVED.

RIGHT TRAFFIC.

MAKE RIGHT TRAFFIC.

RIGHT TRAFFIC APPROVED. CONTINUE.

b. Runway in use.

c. Surface wind.

d. Altimeter setting.

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

e. Any supplementary information.

f. Clearance to land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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



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

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



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



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


What regulation do you believe she misinterpreted?

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



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


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



In reference to the following definition:

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

There is nothing in this definition that suggests the pilot must intercept
the extended runway centerline at any particular point (rather it simply
must be intercepted at SOME point).


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



Consequently, the real issue I posed is whether one can be "on final"
without being precisely on the extended centerline. I believe you
obviously can. Here's some specific themes on the topic:

(1) Flying is inherently IMPRECISE. Specifically, nobody flies on or
intercepts an extended centerline PRECISELY. No one. Not on an ILS,
not visually, not ever.


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



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


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



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


He was wrong.



(2) "Final" is a general direction.


"Final" for any given runway is specific.



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


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



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


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



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


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

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

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

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

Now to answer some of your specific questions:

What regulation do you believe she misinterpreted?

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

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

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

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

Mabye. There is something called crab g.

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

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

Regards, Jim


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

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...

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

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

(1) The expression "Report 5 miles final" is not an instruction.


Yes it is.



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


Doug is wrong.

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

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

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


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control-- Terminal

Section 10. Arrival Procedures and Separation

3-10-1. LANDING INFORMATION

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

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

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

PHRASEOLOGY-
ENTER LEFT/RIGHT BASE.

STRAIGHT-IN.

MAKE STRAIGHT-IN.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROVED.

RIGHT TRAFFIC.

MAKE RIGHT TRAFFIC.

RIGHT TRAFFIC APPROVED. CONTINUE.

b. Runway in use.

c. Surface wind.

d. Altimeter setting.

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

e. Any supplementary information.

f. Clearance to land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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



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

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



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



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


What regulation do you believe she misinterpreted?

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



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


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



In reference to the following definition:

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

There is nothing in this definition that suggests the pilot must
intercept
the extended runway centerline at any particular point (rather it simply
must be intercepted at SOME point).


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



Consequently, the real issue I posed is whether one can be "on final"
without being precisely on the extended centerline. I believe you
obviously can. Here's some specific themes on the topic:

(1) Flying is inherently IMPRECISE. Specifically, nobody flies on or
intercepts an extended centerline PRECISELY. No one. Not on an ILS,
not visually, not ever.


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



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


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



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


He was wrong.



(2) "Final" is a general direction.


"Final" for any given runway is specific.



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


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



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


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



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


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

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
news:ZspTc.37445$ih.14790@fed1read07...

Thanks, Steve--you've made some good points. Interestingly, Doug
quoted the exact paragraph, 3-10-1.g, to illustrate his point that it
WASN'T standard phraseology.


That would indicate he does not understand the paragraph.



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


Class of tower?



Are you a "Procedures Specialist?"


Nope.



What's your contact information?


I don't understand that question either.



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


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

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



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


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



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

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


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



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


Mabye. There is something called crab g.


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



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


Well, please re-read my message again for my purpose.


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



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


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

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair winds,

Regards, Jim

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message

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

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

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message newsoqTc.37452

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



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

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

What are you flying, BTW?

I don't fly anything right now.


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Jim Cummiskey wrote:


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


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

GB