interesting moment yesterday on final

"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.

"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.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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


Why does the length of final matter?

"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?

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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?

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... .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.