If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I would interpret her clearance to mean I should report
5 miles out on the extended runway center line. There could be traffic issues that caused her to request you follow this path to the runway. "Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message ... Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago: I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in Prescott, AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles final." I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240 (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline). At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report "5 mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this." Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles Final" really mean?" Is it. . . . (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report (sounds like a base to me). or (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away. I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which definition is right? Regards, Jim |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
She said cleared "straight in" for runway 21L. That (to me) is to come in
on the final approach path, i.e. extended runway centerline. I think tower controllers always give you a position to enter the airport traffic pattern. They either give you a downwind, base or "straight in" (i.e. final). In your situation I think I would have adjusted course to intercept the final approach fix or the runway centerline 5 miles out which ever was greater. Further, it might have been a concern of hers that from your position 240 degrees coming in to 21L you would cross the final approach path of 21R on short final. If she assumed you'd be on the extended center line of 21L she might have cleared someone on 21R at the same time making a dangerous situation. Kobra (no expert) "Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message ... Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago: I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in Prescott, AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles final." I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240 (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline). At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report "5 mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this." Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles Final" really mean?" Is it. . . . (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report (sounds like a base to me). or (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away. I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which definition is right? Regards, Jim |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for your comments, Peter. Here's my thoughts:
Frankly, I don't see how "be careful about this" is patronizing or otherwise indicates a person having a bad day. It was a matter of her tone. Like most pilots, I like to think I know what I'm doing. And, when I'm doing things right, I don't like a controller "correcting" me--especially what I feel is an uncivil and patronizing tone. The real issue is: "Was I right?" Based on the many responses, there appears to be some difference of opinion on that. commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper procedure (which he obviously did not know prior). IS this the proper procedure? Pilots tend to resolve things definitively on this forum by quoting the FAR, AIM, or other appropriate authority. In the absence of such explicit guidance, we can only offer opinion backed by informed logic and experience. So, let me restate: Where does it unequivocally state that being on the extended center line is a requirement for a "straight-in" VFR approach? If so, please define "on the extended center line" for me. How close is close enough? 10 ft? 100 ft? 1/4 mile? 30 degrees at 20 miles? Perhaps some of the folks on this forum can just fly much more precisely than I do g. Indeed, that is why I believe in the IFR domain, the definition of "straight-in" includes the 30 degrees. This provides for a REASONABLE definition of "straight-in" that clearly should be sufficient for VFR applications. Regards, Jim "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message . 158... The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM, but why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict? I think the most important answer is for the same reason it's important to report your CORRECT position while at an uncontrolled field: it simplifies the business of actually SEEING the airplane reporting their position. The tower is just as interested in seeing you as other airplanes are. If you are not where you claim to be, that's a problem, and a rather serious one at that. Other reasons include things like other traffic in the vicinity (though the tower controller is not tasked with separating airborne traffic, they still do help with that), trying to keep traffic away from noise-sensitive areas, or sequencing (trying to help along the process of airplanes arriving at the runway with an even spacing). Bottom line, there are a number of reasons the controller might care that you report the correct position. In that case, the controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual separation. In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the controller was just having a bad day. It wasn't necessarily other traffic that was an issue, this time. But even if it was, the controller may well have expected Jim to be somewhere different, in a position that would not have required a traffic alert be issued to him. Perhaps the controllers comments were along the lines of "this didn't matter this time, but you should get it right next time, because it might matter then". Frankly, I don't see how "be careful about this" is patronizing or otherwise indicates a person having a bad day. I have had to deal with controllers who were genuinely having a bad day, and they were downright abusive. A pilot *should* be careful about reporting an incorrect position, and by commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper procedure (which he obviously did not know prior). He used words like "snippy" and "rude" and "patronizing", but until I hear the tape, I'm not going to take his word for it. None of the *words* he quoted indicate any of those things, and the controller was well within her rights to point out Jim's error. It's just as likely that Jim was being defensive about his own actions, coloring his interpretation of what the controller said. Pete |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
If the plane went direct to the numbers and had to cross the downwind
leg (and that's the way I read it), most of the pattern would be unusable when the plane got close Actually, no. If you think about it, if you approach the numbers at a ~30 deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a ~45 deg angle, there will be no conflict whatsover. Regards, Jim "Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... Andrew Sarangan wrote: The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM, but why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict? So that the controller can plan on using the rest of the space to sequence traffic. That's what they do. In this case, keeping a plane on straight-in five mile final keeps the entire downwind leg available, and planes can be sequenced both before and after the plane on final. If the plane went direct to the numbers and had to cross the downwind leg (and that's the way I read it), most of the pattern would be unusable when the plane got close. Light planes change speed quickly too, so the time it would be unusable would be difficult to predict as well. In that case, the controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual separation. The plane was 20 miles out. A zillion things can happen before it gets there. Issuing a traffic alert would have been pointless. In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the controller was just having a bad day. She kept the pattern squence moving, and even the plane 20 miles out knew (or should have known) what to expect. It sounds to me like she was having a great day. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard
to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final" John, IMHO, I was "on final." The whole point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe you have to be precisely on the extended center line to be on final. Rather, to me "Cleared Straight-In" implies that you should not make a downwind or base turn, but simply fly direct to the airport, align yourself with the runway, and land. I also don't agree you are necessarily any "harder to find" on final if you are offset within 30 deg. from which you *must* make a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final? If the prospect of making a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final fills you with dread, you should never try to land a Pitts (which routinely requires you to slip it in while offset from the centerline). Also, why necessarily wait until short final to make an abrupt low altitude turn? One could simply turn gradually and gracefully in a shallow bank turn to end up aligned with the extended center line. Hardly dangerous. Common sense, prudence, and professional practice would all lead you to a point on the extended centerline some miles out from the field. Un huh. I suppose the absolutely correct thing for me to have done was to setup a waypoint in my GPS exactly five miles out from the numbers on the extended center line and fly direct to that. Please. I prefer to do more meaningful things when I'm close to an airport (like look for traffic). It costs you nothing to do so, and makes the system simpler and safer. Actually, it costs you about one minute more flying. May not seem like a lot to you, but after 26 hours of flying to KOSH and back, every minute seems valuable. Regards, Jim "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which definition is right? There may be some rule or combination of rules and definitions that would allow you to fly direct from present position to the threshold, but why would you want to? Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final", and B) from which you *must* make a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final?Common sense, prudence, and professional practice would all lead you to a point on the extended centerline some miles out from the field. It costs you nothing to do so, and makes the system simpler and safer. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. Thanks, Steven. Just to be clear, what source are you quoting this from? Also, I must point out that my approach and landing met this criteria. I "intercepted the extended runway centerline without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern." In this case, I chose to intercept the extended runway centerline at approximately 1/4 mile from the numbers, while reporting a "Five Mile Final" when I was five miles from doing so. The issue is: Was this correct? Or, must a pilot literally intercept the extended center line at a specific distance (which some on this forum seem to assume that the controller implied when she directed me to "Report 5 miles final")? Regards, Jim "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net... "Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message ... Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago: I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in Prescott, AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles final." What did she clear you for? "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L" is not an approach or landing clearance. I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240 (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline). At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report "5 mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this." Well, she's right about not being on final. "Final" means that an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with the runway. Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles Final" really mean?" Is it. . . . (1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report (sounds like a base to me). or (2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away. "Straight-in" by itself is undefined, but there are other defined terms that include it. STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR- An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums. 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. STRAIGHT-IN LANDING- A landing made on a runway aligned within 30° of the final approach course following completion of an instrument approach. I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which definition is right? For VFR purposes, you're not on "final" until you're aligned with the runway. She instructed you to report a five mile final, which you would never be on unless you altered your course to the airport. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
... [...] So, let me restate: Where does it unequivocally state that being on the extended center line is a requirement for a "straight-in" VFR approach? You were told to report "5 mile final". Regardless of what you think a "straight-in approach is" (and frankly, I find your equivocating on that point mind boggling...I never saw a straight line that had a 30 degree bend in it), a "5 mile final" is *only* a point on the runway's extended centerline 5 miles out. There is no ambiguity. Your continued defensiveness on the question definitely causes me to question your interpretation of the controllers communication to you as well. You are obviously sore about the incident, and are trying very hard to come out as the person in the right, in spite of considerable clear evidence to the contrary. Pete |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
... Actually, no. If you think about it, if you approach the numbers at a ~30 deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a ~45 deg angle, there will be no conflict whatsover. How do you figure that? Firstly, the "45 degree key point" taught students for where to turn base is just a rule of thumb...base turns are made much earlier and much later than that, depending on factors other than just following a rote procedure. Secondly, the flight path of an airplane flying 90 degrees to the runway heading on base intersects the flight path of an airplane flying 30 degrees to the runway heading, heading straight for the numbers. Since the flight paths intersect, there certainly IS a potential for a conflict. I'd agree that the odds of there being a conflict on the downwind leg (rather than the base leg) are low (though not nonexistent since extended downwinds are a common enough procedure, especially at towered airports), but to say that "there will be no conflict whatsoever" is hugely and inappropriately optimistic. Pete |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
... Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final" John, IMHO, I was "on final." The definition of "final" clearly indicates that you were not. The whole point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe you have to be precisely on the extended center line to be on final. Then you'd better start lobbying the FAA to change the pilot/controller glossary. It does not current agree with your belief. Rather, to me "Cleared Straight-In" implies that you should not make a downwind or base turn, but simply fly direct to the airport, align yourself with the runway, and land. Align yourself with the runway, yes. Do it 100 feet from the numbers, no. If you've been told to report a "5 mile final", you need to be aligned with the runway by the time you're 5 miles from the runway. I also don't agree you are necessarily any "harder to find" on final if you are offset within 30 deg. You are free to disagree, of course. But that doesn't make it true. If you tell someone you are at a position aligned with the runway, and you are actually 2.5 miles away from that position, that makes it VERY hard to find you. [...] Un huh. I suppose the absolutely correct thing for me to have done was to setup a waypoint in my GPS exactly five miles out from the numbers on the extended center line and fly direct to that. Please. I prefer to do more meaningful things when I'm close to an airport (like look for traffic). If you can't look at your chart and identify a position 5 miles away from the airport on the extended runway centerline, you have no business flying an airplane. You should not need a GPS to comply with the controller's instructions. Actually, it costs you about one minute more flying. May not seem like a lot to you, but after 26 hours of flying to KOSH and back, every minute seems valuable. That's got to be the most ridiculous part of your defense I've heard so far. Both because 60 seconds is a trivial amount of extra time, no matter how far you've flown, and because from 20 miles out, adjusting your flight path to aim for a true 5 mile final adding 60 seconds to your flight time means you are cruising at about 60 knots. If you are flying something that cruises at 60 knots and you can't stand an extra 60 seconds of flight, you have the wrong airplane. In any case, you would have been well within your rights to decline the controller's instruction and request a true point-to-point straight flight from your position to the runway. The question here isn't whether it was reasonable to ask you to deviate, but whether you even understand that you were asked to do so. The more I read your responses in this thread, the more I wonder if you are really genuinely interested in learning the actual answer to your question. It sure doesn't seem like you are. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Emergency Procedures | RD | Piloting | 13 | April 11th 04 08:25 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |