Straight-ins at uncontrolled airports?

Jim wrote:

What is the group's take on 91.126 and 91.127?
Jim


you mean the part about "Unless otherwise authorized or
required..." ?

--Sylvain

Several thoughts... I'll line 'em up, let's shoot 'em down...

Publish date for 91.126 seems to be 2004.
Was AC90.66A noting "the FAA acknowledges that straight in approaches are
not prohibited" published before or after 91.126?

IF the AC was issued after 91.126 was ruled, shouldn't 91.126 be amended by
now or vise versa?

"Otherwise authorized" Obviously a clearance would constitute
authorization, what about local authorities such as airport owners,
managers, or boards?

Jim

Sorry for responding to my own post, I was attempting to look up AC90.66A,
which I finally found was issued 8/26/1993, prior to 91.126.

No school here today and every kid is home playing internet video games.
They've got the net slowed to a crawl.
Jim

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
Jim wrote:

What is the group's take on 91.126 and 91.127?
Jim


you mean the part about "Unless otherwise authorized or
required..." ?

--Sylvain

AC90.6A states:
e. The FAA encouragesp ilots to use the standard

traffic pattern. However, for those pilots who choose

to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for

and execution of the approach should be completed

so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and

departing traffic. Therefore,p ilots operating in the

traffic pattern should be alert at all times to

aircraft executing straight-in approaches.

Right turn approved on departure.




Jim wrote:

What is the group's take on 91.126 and 91.127?
Jim

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

As others have told you, it's never been illegal to do a straight-in
approach.

However, PLEASE try to refrain from doing them when the pattern is
full. Not only is it rude, it's often dangerous to attempt when
you've got three on downwind, one on base, and one already on final.
I see this happen all too often -- almost invariably by the charter
guys, who have a paying guy in the back that's late for his meeting --
and it results in frayed nerves and flared tempers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

As others have told you, it's never been illegal to do a straight-in
approach.

However, PLEASE try to refrain from doing them when the pattern is
full. Not only is it rude, it's often dangerous to attempt when
you've got three on downwind, one on base, and one already on final.
I see this happen all too often -- almost invariably by the charter
guys, who have a paying guy in the back that's late for his meeting --
and it results in frayed nerves and flared tempers.


Simple solution. The straight-in should follow the aircraft on base and the
aircraft on downwind alter their patterns to follow the straight-in.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:09:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
roups.com...

As others have told you, it's never been illegal to do a straight-in
approach.

However, PLEASE try to refrain from doing them when the pattern is
full. Not only is it rude, it's often dangerous to attempt when
you've got three on downwind, one on base, and one already on final.
I see this happen all too often -- almost invariably by the charter
guys, who have a paying guy in the back that's late for his meeting --
and it results in frayed nerves and flared tempers.


Simple solution. The straight-in should follow the aircraft on base and the
aircraft on downwind alter their patterns to follow the straight-in.


It's usually not complicated if people are paying attention.
If I can fit between sky divers and jump planes at Zypher Hills I
should be able to adjust to either have enough room to land and clear
the runway ahead of the guy on long final, or extend my down wind to
get behind him.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote in message
...

It's usually not complicated if people are paying attention.
If I can fit between sky divers and jump planes at Zypher Hills I
should be able to adjust to either have enough room to land and clear
the runway ahead of the guy on long final, or extend my down wind to
get behind him.


'Zackly. I think many pilots 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 aircraft announces a
long straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way
shouldn't be an issue. If he's closer in you may have to extend your
downwind a bit to follow him.

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




'Zackly. I think many pilots 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 aircraft announces
a
long straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way
shouldn't be an issue. If he's closer in you may have to extend your
downwind a bit to follow him.

Maybe, if that were based just on FAR91.113b.
Where does "on final" begin? If I'm abeam the numbers on downwind and
an inbound calls "...at 3300 feet [pattern altitude] on 15 mile final" for
the same runway, can I cut in front of him or not? FAR 91.113b seems tenuous
(subjective) while 91.113g seems to explicitly deny me that option.