On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:44:59 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:20:24 -0500, "Allen"
wrote in :

It also defines "final" as
the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
course or is aligned with a landing area.


Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
the FAF. Easy.


So if you are on a VFR flight doing a straight in you are never on final?


Not the way I see it.

If you are aligned with the runway centerline VFR inbound, past the
FAF fix if there is a published instrument approach, I would say your
flight meets the PCG definition of being on the final approach leg of
the landing pattern. If there is no published FAF, (again, as in my
answer to your previous question in Message-ID:
qv) there are issues
governed by the prevailing metrological conditions and the class of
airspace in which the flight is being conducted.

I realize you are attempting to point out, that there are often
instances where the flight on downwind will inadvertently violate the
first sentence of CFR Title 14, Part 91 §91.113(g):


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text... .1.3.10.2.4.7
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while
landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface
which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an
aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are
approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at
the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take
advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on
final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

But the second sentence of §91.113(g) above relating to the relative
altitudes of the aircraft makes that interpretation a bit ambiguous.

In practice, the point you are attempting to make is probably moot, as
I'm not aware of a significant number of MACs resulting from
§91.113(g) violations.

But you might do some research on the NTSB aviation accident database
to verify your concern: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp