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.