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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway. It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers. On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower controller to ask for it. It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
Recently, Peter Duniho posted: "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. This thoery is correct, AFAICT. However, in practice that should get the controller issuing such a clearance fired. I don't *ever* want to be on a straight-in 5 mile final if other traffic is going to wind up on some random variant of base at the same time. That said, There are many times at controlled airports (and even more at uncontrolled airports) when there are aircraft on base and final (and everywhere else) at the same time. The controllers call out those positions and issue a clearance if the other traffic is in sight. I've also had controllers call my base turn during heavy traffic. IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing. As Jim hasn't mentioned whether there was other traffic inbound or in the pattern, I'd think that would be an important factor in whether he was right or wrong to be off-center. If there was no traffic, there'd be no conflict and the controller was just being manipulative. If there was traffic, and the controller didn't call it out, that might be grounds for complaint. After all is said and done, the FARs make it quite clear who the PIC is, and one requirement is that they're in the cockpit. Neil |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
I think Steven interprets the parenthetic reference to "final approach
course" as a definition of Final Approach Course as the Extended Runway Centerline. Whether that is a valid definition and a true requirement could come into question, but I'm inclined to agree with Steven on this one. IMHO, if a request from Tower for a "straight in approach" was the same as a request from Tower for "straight for the numbers", one of the two terms would not be used. I've found in my few years of flying that the cost of 60 seconds in the air is generally cheaper than the cost of compromising safety and/or breaking rules... "Jim Cummiskey" wrote in : 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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ....a very quick, through, competent, intelligent individual... [who] manages his own [__________] 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. Perhaps the root of the confusion stems from the two disparate meanings for the same term 'Final' under IFR and VFR. I'm not sure. IFR and VFR are two different worlds, and ought not be that easily confused. The IFR discuss and define 'approach segments', etc., while the VFR do not, as I recall. Perhaps back one step further, I think to the tome that used to be referred to as the 'TERPS manual'; to the standard that allows an established instrument approach to be defined as 'straight-in' if aligned within 30 degrees of the runway. You could be on a final approach segment under IFR while off centerline by 25 degrees, but that definition would not carry over to "being on final approach" under VFR. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway. It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers. On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower controller to ask for it. It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic. Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in error. The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made some readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean. As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your
eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your night vision. If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing separation. If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night. If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability. It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the larger picture. "AJW" wrote in message ... "Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway. It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers. On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower controller to ask for it. It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic. Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in error. The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made some readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean. As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message ...
What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees to the runway? Probably not good job'... Well, let's see. I got on the ground efficiently and precisely with the minimum amount of fuel and time required. That happens to me all the time. It does not mean that every flying decision I make is correct It was a completely safe operation, and consistent with my understanding of the FARs and common sense. Since I do hold a CFI ticket, that's exactly what I would have said g There's a big difference between teaching a student to fly precise legs in the pattern, and the real-world of getting from A to B. What if ATC replies 'make left traffic, report 5 mile left base'? Would you have driven straight for the numbers? Nope, I would have driven straight for the normal point in the pattern where one turns from base to final (approximately 1/2 mile from the numbers at a 45 deg angle to the runway). Actually, your question (although deliberately smart-alecky and inane), really brings this problem into base relief. Are you suggesting that I should have picked a point on the EXTENDED BASE 5 miles away and flown to that? If so, I see that as clearly just as wrong as the "Report Y Miles Final" issue. In my view, a pilot should fly DIRECT to the turning points in the pattern, NOT artifically extended just because the controller really wants to know, "When will you be about five miles away?" Obviously, this is your view, but where is documentation or FARs that show it to be a true view? Flying from 20 miles NE to the point 5 miles out on the RW centerline is a bit less than 16 miles. So rather than flying 20 miles in a straight line you fly 21 miles in a pair of lines... Thus, my decision to fly DIRECT to the point in the pattern where one turns from base to final seems justifiable (while reporting five miles away from the airport). Thoughts? My thoughts are what happens to subsequent inbound traffic on a long left base told to look for traffic on a long 5-mile final? HankC |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Cummiskey" writes: [...] 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. [...] 30 degrees at 20 miles translates to about 10 miles off the extended centerline. That would be wide by a space larger than the entire control zone. 30 degrees at 5 miles is 2.5, which is wider than the entire typical VFR circuit. Does this basic trigonometry help put your error into perspective? - FChE |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your night vision. If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing separation. If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night. If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability. It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the larger picture. "AJW" wrote in message ... As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight. Sorry, but in the circumstances I cited, I told the tower They'd get no light until I was out of the clouds, and they didn't complain. WhenI'm flying an approach in clouds at night I turn off strobes, too. I do NOT fly with my eyes shut, not even for 5 seconds. Re traffic avoidance, it was solid IFR, I think the ceiling had to have been about 300 feet or so. I don't remember if there was someone at the threshold waiting to go, although it's likely with approach painting me a ciouple of miles out that they'd have realeased someone for take off. I think in this case I made the right decision, but it'll be interesting to see what others here will say. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message ...
What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees to the runway? Probably not good job'... Well, let's see. I got on the ground efficiently and precisely with the minimum amount of fuel and time required. It was a completely safe operation, and consistent with my understanding of the FARs and common sense. Since I do hold a CFI ticket, that's exactly what I would have said g There's a big difference between teaching a student to fly precise legs in the pattern, and the real-world of getting from A to B. What if ATC replies 'make left traffic, report 5 mile left base'? Would you have driven straight for the numbers? Nope, I would have driven straight for the normal point in the pattern where one turns from base to final (approximately 1/2 mile from the numbers at a 45 deg angle to the runway). Actually, your question (although deliberately smart-alecky and inane), really brings this problem into base relief. Thank you. I was hoping to get you to look at this from different *angle* The need to name-call those with differing opinions is telling. Are you suggesting that I should have picked a point on the EXTENDED BASE 5 miles away and flown to that? If so, I see that as clearly just as wrong as the "Report Y Miles Final" issue. In my view, a pilot should fly DIRECT to the turning points in the pattern, NOT artifically extended just because the controller really wants to know, "When will you be about five miles away?" That is not the question being asked. The question is "When will you be about five miles out on final?"... Thus, my decision to fly DIRECT to the point in the pattern where one turns from base to final seems justifiable (while reporting five miles away from the airport). Thoughts? You did not say you were flying to a "the point in the pattern where one turns from base to final" (original post: "I fly directly towards the numbers"). Even if you had, you imply (final-ly) that 'final' is the RW centerline... After all, how can one fly a 'final' to a point where base intercepts 'final' and then turn on 'final' if you were on 'final' all along? HankC |
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 |